Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL ALITHORMES BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered tomorrow.

QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Home Insulation

Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he is giving to local authorities that wish to help low-income households with draught-proofing, insulation and other means to keep warm in cold homes; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): Advice to local authorities on the availability of Government-funded loft insulation grants under the homes insulation scheme 1987 is contained in Department of the Environment circulars 29/87 and 17/88, and advice on the extent to which energy-related works may be funded by home improvement grants is included in Department of the Environment circulars 21/80 and 16/88.

Mr. Buckley: In view of the retraining scheme, which has stopped local authorities using charitable organisations to deal with the problem, will the Minister consider improving the allocation to local authorities under the housing investment programme? In my local authority area pensioners face continuing and increasing problems because of the coldness of their homes.

Mr. Trippier: We are certainly prepared to consider a more flexible attitude towards the HIP allocation for public housing. I had the opportunity to mention that in the Standing Committee that considered the Local Government and Housing Bill. We must consider the difference between public housing and private rented housing. We have brought forward a scheme in the legislation currently before Parliament that will cover the points that the hon. Gentleman has made on the Order Paper. It will be much wider ranging and will meet the requirements that he specified.

Mr. Holt: Recently I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy why we do not change the law and prevent builders from equipping new houses with ordinary windows instead of with double glazing or triple glazing. That would save the need for insulation later and a great deal of harassment from cowboy operators. It would make buildings warm and proper as soon as they were built without messing around later. Is it not time that the Government woke up to a technological innovation that has been with us for 50 years?

Mr. Trippier: I am certainly prepared to liaise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy but my principal concern and that of the Department of the Environment is building regulations. Rather than stipulating what everyone should have in their homes, we should preserve freedom of choice.

Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware of the reply that the Minister for Local Government gave when the matter was mentioned in a debate on the Local Government and Housing Bill? In his wisdom, the Minister for Local Government advised people to wear an extra jumper to keep warm in the winter months. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) suggested that additional HIP resources should be provided, covering local authority and private housing, to stop draughts and keep houses warm. Will the Minister take note of that?

Mr. Trippier: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government has a superb sense of humour which emerged many times in Committee. Speaking in my capacity as his vicar here on earth, I can confirm that it was said in precisely that spirit. The Local Government and Housing Bill allows a wider qualification for the receipt of improvement grants, which I seem to remember the Opposition welcoming. We did not divide on the issue in Committee.

North Sea (Pollution)

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of pollution in the North sea comes from the Rhine.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): According to the North sea quality status report of November 1987, about 50 per cent. of contaminant inputs from rivers to the North sea are accounted for by the Rhine and the Meuse together.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The public will be surprised and shocked by what my right hon. Friend has told the House. They will be surprised because Britain is supposed to be the dirty man of Europe, and they will be shocked to learn of the damage done to the environment by German rivers. They are entitled to be angry at the lecturing we get from Europe. On a more positive note, will my right hon. Friend look to the future? Does he agree that it is not just a question of money and how deep our purse is, but of the long period that will be necessary to do what we can on this side of the Channel to improve the environment and our rivers?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right and I will gibe him further details. Of the nitrogen entering the North sea, the eastern North sea receives 768,000 tonnes from the continent as opposed to 75,000 tonnes from Britain. The


continental contries discharge 14·6 tonnes of mercury into the North sea, as opposed to 1·9 tonnes from Britain. On cadmium, the figures are 31·6 tonnes against 5·8 tonnes. For industrial waste, the figures are 1·2 million tonnes as opposed to 0·2 million tonnes from Britain. For incineration, the figure for Britain is 2 per cent. and for continental countries it is 55 per cent. It is questionable who is the dirty man of the North sea.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is invidious to come to the House and pass blame on to the continental countries for the pollution that we are causing? Will he acknowledge that the Irish sea is the most radioactive sea in the world as a result of pollution from this country—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This question relates to the Rhine.

Mr. Ridley: I never know why Opposition Members want to knock this country and its excellent record. The Irish sea is not the most radioactive sea by any means. It is 80 times more dangerous to live in Cornwall than in the constituency of Copeland because of natural radiation from radon.

Mr. Devlin: It would be of great interest to the House and to people in the north-east if my right hon. Friend would give us some idea of how much industrial waste is put into the North sea by Britain and West Germany respectively. How much waste is incinerated at sea? As my right hon. Friend will know, the ash and other contaminants that are not incinerated fall into the sea, thus polluting it.

Mr. Ridley: I shall give my hon. Friend the figures on industrial waste. Germany puts in 1·2 million tonnes per annum, which is 60 per cent. of the total. The United Kingdom puts in 0·2 million tonnes, which is 10 per cent. For incineration, the figure for Germany is 58,000 tonnes, whereas for Britain the figure is 2,000 tonnes per annum. I want merely to establish the facts in this matter.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Secretary of State accept that his criticisms of other countries would carry more force if we put our own house in order? What is the cost to the United Kingdom of stopping the pollution of the North sea by sewage sludge, which is expected to be banned by next year's North sea conference, and the cost of stopping the dumping of raw sewage from coastal outflows into the North sea? Should not the Government disclose the costs of those developments, especially as the European Commission is preparing the directive on sewage, or will the Secretary of State suggest that this is another directive on pollution prevention that will be flouted by the Government?

Mr. Ridley: I do not know why the hon. Lady continues to knock the United Kingdom in the face of the figures that I have just given—[Interruption.]I am not knocking anybody; I am merely giving her the figures, which she does not seem to like very much. I dispute the hon. Lady's view on sewage sludge. Putting sewage sludge into the sea may be the best way to deal with it. No doubt the hon. Lady has seen the recently published report on dioxins, of which one of the main sources is the incineration of sewage sludge. Incineration may be the worst environmental option. The hon. Lady should get her science right; she is ill-founded in science. Furthermore, the hon. Lady does not seem to realise that the Royal Commission on

Environmental Pollution has recommended that long sea outfalls are the best way of dealing with sewage from coastal towns.

City Grant Initiative

Mr. Heddle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many jobs the city grant initiative is currently creating.

Mr. Trippier: Projects approved since May last year are expected to provide over 8,500 permanent jobs and about 4,600 temporary construction jobs.

Mr. Heddle: Although I welcome those encouraging figures, how many derelict acres have been recovered, how many new homes and factories have been built and, most important, how much private sector investment has been brought in on the back of the city grant initiative?

Mr. Trippier: The answer to the latter question is that for every pound of taxpayer's money that we have invested through city grant, we have attracted four times that figure from the private sector, which is most impressive. About 1,200 homes have been built, 230 acres of derelict and rundown land have been brought back into use, and approximately 3·5 million sq ft of industrial and commercial floor space will be created as a result of city grant.

Mr. O'Brien: What is the Minister doing to ensure that city grants are not used as a vehicle to generate greater tax dodges, as is happening with property enterprise trusts? When will the Minister make available to the House the details of the city grants that are given to private developers so that we can investigate where the money is going and how it is being spent? The reply that the Minister has given to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) does nothing to encourage the availability of information or accountability for the money that is spent through city grant. When will the House be given the information about where the money is going?

Mr. Trippier: That question is outrageous. I have never heard an hon. Member of any party ever say that city grant has been used for a dubious purpose. It has been widely recognised as a successor to the urban regeneration grant and to the urban development grant, but it is a much more efficient system. I have made clear to local authorities their significant part in this, because I will not accept an application for city grant unless the project has received planning permission. Therefore, it has been widely welcomed by the local authorities. I am only too happy to give the details to the hon. Gentleman and to the House and to answer any specific questions that he might table. We have absolutely nothing to hide and a great deal of which to be proud.

Association of County Councils

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of County Councils; and what was discussed.

Mr. Ridley: On 29 November last, to discuss local authority capital finance and local authority interests in companies.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the duties carried out by county councils could be devolved down to district authorities and be more effectively carried out by them? Does he further agree that the policy of abolishing county councils would command almost universal support, bearing in mind that even the Opposition have come out in favour of abolition, perhaps in recognition of the damage done to them by the leader of Derbyshire county council?

Mr. Ridley: A short month after we regained control of one of the major local authority associations—the Association of County Councils—it would be strange for me to say that we should abolish them. In that context, I congratulate John Chatfield on becoming the Conservative chairman of the Association of County Councils. I invite the Opposition to consider how they think they will ever win an election when they cannot even hold a local authority association of that importance in mid-term. I advise my hon. Friend that we have no plans to abolish the county councils.

Mr. Pike: When the Secretary of State discussed capital finance with the county authorities, did he recognise that many counties have a problem meeting the large capital costs of developing new waste disposal sites that meet adequate safety levels? Does he recognise that that is an important problem, and will he ensure that the county authorities receive sufficient allocations in future years to meet that need?

Mr. Ridley: I realise the importance of that. As the hon. Gentleman may know, we hope to have early legislation on the counties' responsibilities in relation to waste disposal. We must ensure that the capital allocations follow the policy that we will lay down. If county councils are short of capital, one option is to ensure that the disposal operations are carried out by the private sector and that they are properly regulated by the county councils.

Mr. Raison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people, including my constituents in Buckinghamshire, believe that they are well served by their county councils? Will he accept my thanks for the fact that he does not at present intend to introduce further changes in the structure of local government?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The Government have in many respects carried out a major reform of local authorities. We should give them a period to adjust to the new circumstances, which they are beginning to do. They are also beginning to perform much more in the interests of their electors and chargepayers-to-be. We should allow them a period to consolidate.

Mr. Michael: Is the Secretary of State aware of the county councils' concern for the elderly for whom they are responsible? They are especially worried about the way in which the cold affects old people. Is he aware that the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment was entirely unsatisfactory, because what is needed to improve insulation is not only more flexibility, but more money? The amount of money available has been slashed because the Government have reduced the number of people in training places. They were doing a tremendous amount of good work in that area.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman cannot ask a supplementary to question No. 1 on question No. 4. which refers to county councils. We are not responsible for the matters with which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was dealing.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from tenant groups in favour of a system of local government finance based on capital value rates.

Mr. Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from tenant groups in favour of a system of local government finance based on capital value rates and local income tax.

Mr. Ridley: Not surprisingly, I have received hardly any representations in favour of a system of local government finance based on capital value rates or a local income tax.

Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be monstrous for tenants to have capital value rates based on the value of their properties? Does he agree that about 20,000 people living in council houses in my constituency would consider it a major injustice if they had to pay rates based on the price of a house in which they have no financial interest?

Mr. Ridley: It is impossible to contemplate basing local authority payments, of whatever description, on the capital value of the houses of those who rent them. It is inexplicably unfair. Council property in central London will be up to four or five times more valuable than council property in, say, my hon. Friend's constituency. Why should those council tenants be expected to pay four or five times more for the same services? Our system is based on the cost of the services that are provided, and is infinitely fairer. The community charge in Lancashire, West, if it had been in place last year, would have been £230 in total. But if there had been a system of local income tax, a single person earning £11,000 a year—about the national average wage—would have paid a tax bill of £495.

Mr. Burt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has received no representations from tenant groups because they have been working out—as they have been in my constituency—how badly stung they would be by a system of double taxation, not only in the extra burden of the ridiculous administration costs needed to run two tax systems, but in their failure to control their local authority spending, because local income tax would make the local authorities less accountable? Is that not why they have not been pestering him with demands to bring in that outrageous system?

Mr. Ridley: To be fair, my hon. Friend should admit that they never dreamt that it could happen because they could not contemplate the nightmare of a Labour Government. Just in case they should have that nightmare, I should reinforce what my hon. Friend has said. A system based on capital value rates and local income tax would cost up to four times as much to administer as the present rating system. In my hon. Friend's constituency the local income tax rate alone, if that was the system adopted,


would be 6·4p in the pound, which is about as much as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has knocked off national income tax.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that he cannot back up with factual background analytical material a single figure that he has quoted from the Dispatch Box today? Will he explain to the House how it is that, up to now, he has defended the idea that, among domestic ratepayers, owner-occupiers should pay a tax on occupancy based on rental values, and that it will continue for business men as a tax on the rental value of the property that they own as a means of collecting local authority rates? The right hon. Gentleman has mixed those two up, and the way in which he has answered the question is disgraceful. Capital value taxes or rental value taxes are a tax on occupancy, not a tax on ownership. It is simply a means of raising the revenue. Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that? The revenue should be raised in a fairer way than through a flat-rate poll tax.

Mr. Ridley: I know that it hurts the hon. Gentleman, but I am going to rub his nose in it. The other day he was talking about the iniquities of capital value rents. Why does he support a party that advocates capital value taxes for local authorities based on the capital value of a tenant's house? By advocating that policy rather than the community charge he is selling his constituents down the river.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why will not the Secretary of State stop misrepresenting Labour policy? Why does he not look at what it says as against what he wants to believe it says? Does he understand that that policy is eminently more sensible than the poll tax? The simple truth is that the right hon. Gentleman is on his backside with the poll tax. The Cabinet is considering paying an extra subsidy to local authorities so that they can reduce the poll tax by £30 per man and woman because the Cabinet knows that it is unpopular. Is that not the truth?

Mr. Ridley: I say to the hon. Gentleman in all humility —[Interruption.]—that if I have made any false assumption in working out the figures that I have given this afternoon it is because I have written three times to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) asking for full details of what the Labour party proposes, but on none of those occasions have I had an acknowledgement, let alone a reply. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me to tell me on what assumptions he bases his twin-tax horror regime—his twin-tax nightmare—I will rework the examples and take the hon. Gentleman through them so that he is satisfied about the enormous havoc that his party's policy would wreak on his constituents. I will not hesitate to tell his constituents on every possible occasion the horrors of the policy that he has advocated.

Mr. Norris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is appalling that the Labour party should make such outrageous suggestions when it is well known that one of the groups most likely to benefit under the community charge arrangements is the single elderly who live on their own? Are not the people who live in that poverty trap among those to whom any party pledged to care for the less fortunate should pay attention?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. When opposition for opposition's sake is at an end, our system will be seen to be far fairer to people who deserve help and relief than anything that has come from the Labour party.

Dr. Cunningham: Humility is a facet of the right hon. Gentleman's character which he has hitherto kept well disguised. I fear that its sudden emergence is rather late to save his skin. If he checks the records of his correspondence he will find that he has received a reply to his letters. Since he appears to be so concerned about the financial well-being of council house tenants, perhaps he should explain to them and to the House why he and his right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government plan to increase tenants' rents to make them pay the rents of those who do not pay. Why is he planning to increase council house tenants' rents to make them subsidise the poll tax of those who are much better off? Since, as a scientist, the right hon. Gentleman says that he is always interested in evidence, why does he not consult the records and studies of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Rating and Valuation Association, both of which show that a system of capital values will not only be more efficient, but fairer.

Mr. Ridley: Openness is not a facet of the hon. Gentleman's character which he has ever failed to disguise. Please may we be told what proportion of new local authority revenue will come from capital revenue rates and how much from local income tax? Does the hon. Gentleman plan resource equalisation and is there any system of rebates? Will he answer any of the questions about the Labour party's system? I shall not desist from exposing the figures implied by his system until he gives the proper data to change the figures, and when he does so I will change the figures, and he will not like them either.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps we can now settle down to question No. 6.

Community Charge

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to harmonise the design of community charge registration forms.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer): My right hon. Friend produced a model form in consultation with local authority associations last autumn. He has no powers to prescribe the form.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that several local authorities have, by ignoring the guidelines issued by his own Department, fallen foul of the Data Protection Act 1984? Who is expected to pick up the bill for those forms which will now have to be processed manually?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right in saying that local authorities have the right and the powers to produce their own forms, which is perfectly proper. Local authorities often say that they want more independence and this is one area in which they have it. If they decide to do differently they must also take the advice of the Department which is that they should check whether their forms comply with the Data Protection Act. If they do not, that is their responsibility and they must pay the bill.

Mr. Nellist: Is not the Minister deluding himself if he thinks that any cosmetic changes made to the forms will minimise the hatred of the poll tax felt throughout the country? Is it not a fact that despite any design changes which his hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) may propose, the tax is a savage attack on the living standards of the low paid, young, old and women who are presently living in low-rated properties? Almost 1 million people in Scotland have not paid the poll tax and it is likely that by next April, four or five times that number will not be paying the poll tax in England and Wales, notwithstanding any suggestions from the hon. Member for Wimbledon.

Mr. Gummer: No. The facts are that first, the poorest group of the population will pay 25 per cent. less towards the community charge than they presently pay towards the rates, so there will be a cut in the cost of rates or community charge to the poorest. Secondly, the top 10 per cent. of earners will pay 15 times as much towards local authority costs than the bottom 10 per cent. Thirdly, one in four of the population will receive a rebate. Fourthly, 5 million people will, in effect, not pay the community charge because they will receive an 80 per cent. rebate and sufficient to cover a sensible community charge in their area. The policy of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), which was originally to support the rates, would hit the poorest much more than the community charge.

Mr. Dykes: Would it not be a good idea to have different coloured forms for the three different kinds of tax? We could have a blue form for the personal community charge, a green form for the standard community charge, which is a classic property tax, and a red form for the collective community charge.

Mr. Gummer: I prefer to keep the red form for any area that tries to bring in the Labour party's two-tax proposals.

Mr. Blunkett: As the Minister has already said this afternoon that poll tax registration officers have already breached the Data Protection Act 1984 with the intrusive and non-statutory questions that they have asked, what advice would he give to people who think that they have a form that includes intrusive questions?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that these officers are not responsible to local authorities but are directed under the Act by the Minister? Is it not time that the Government accepted responsibility for the chaos in registration?

Mr. Gummer: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to create chaos out of a system that is working rather well. Labour authorities are saying how well it is working, in the sense that they are getting the forms back. I was in Ipswich—a Labour-controlled authority—only last week. The council there compliments itself on the degree to which it is obtaining results—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can take it from me—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This all very entertaining but it takes up a great deal of time. We are making very slow progress.

Mr. Gummer: Anyone who is asked a question for which there is no statutory backing need not respond to it and if he does not want to answer it he should not.

Global Warming

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effects of global warming.

Mr. Ridley: I hope that global warming will reduce Chamber warming.
The potential impacts of global warming and climate change are currently being reviewed and assessed by the intergovernmental panel on climate change, established under the United Nations environment programme and the World Meteorological Organisation last November. The panel will report in the autumn of 1990.

Mr. Wallace: I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that one of the important factors contributing to global warming is the destruction of many tropical rain forests. Is his Department encouraging and helping local authorities—many of them controlled by my party—that are trying to adopt purchasing policies to find alternatives to tropical hardwoods from non-sustainable sources?

Mr. Ridley: We must take this problem extremely seriously, and internationally. That is why we have proposed in the United Nations and in the United Nations environment programme general council that there should be a global framework convention on climate change, under which various protocols can be negotiated, including one on tropical rain forests. The right way forward is to involve all the nations of the world; our initiative in this field has been taken very seriously and has received a great deal of support. We cannot do this at only the national level, let alone at the local authority level.

Mr. Squire: I support what my right hon. Friend says about the inevitable international impact of this issue, but does he agree that the problem of carbon dioxide, which is not covered by the steps that have already been taken to control power station emissions, and which will be exacerbated by the catalyst solution for cars, remains one of the single most pressing problems?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. One of the worries is that the drive to improve nitrogen oxide emissions from motor vehicles and to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power stations has the result of increased fuel consumption and hence increased emissions of carbon dioxide. I am afraid that carbon dioxide, which is the most important greenhouse gas, has become the Cinderella of environmental policies, and we must watch out and make sure that our policies have the effect of reducing, not increasing, carbon dioxide.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Minister agree that only two thirds of the 50 per cent. of the CO2 that goes into the environment comes from burning fossil fuel and that methane, chlorofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide and surface ozone are also significant contributory factors? Will he admit that the experts who attended the Prime Minister's special seminar on the greenhouse effect pointed out that a 15 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, which a change of emphasis to nuclear power stations would produce, is three times less than the reduction that would take place from the major energy conservation initiatives that the Government not only refuse to contemplate but are cutting back on?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman says that only two thirds of carbon dioxide comes from burning fossil fuels. Therefore, one would have thought that that would be the area where one would start to seek to make reductions. Secondly, since I was at the Prime Minister's seminar and he was not, may I tell him that his account of it is far from accurate.

Unleaded Petrol

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of garages now stock unleaded petrol.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): It is estimated that well over 50 per cent. of petrol stations are now selling the fuel, and that two out of three refuellings take place at a petrol station where unleaded is available.

Mr. Arnold: Does that not show the effect that the Government's green policies are having both on environmental pollution and on public health? Can my hon. Friend tell us what further progress has been made as a result of the Budget provisions?

Mrs. Bottomley: Certainly the uptake of unleaded petrol is a clear indication of action, not words, in regard to environmental protection. The Chancellor increased the differential in the Budget. It is now the second highest in the European Community. Since then the uptake of unleaded petrol has risen threefold. It was 6·4 per cent. in March and it is now approaching 20 per cent. This is an indication of the popularity of environmental policies and the success of the Chancellor's differential.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that in addition to the lead that Wolverhampton has taken with its recent highly successful lead-free campaign, the town can now proudly boast that 98 per cent. of its garages stock unleaded petrol?

Mrs. Bottomley: I think that the entire House would like to pay tribute to the success of Wolverhampton's initiative. In one day alone mechanics managed to adjust the magnificent total of 1,126 motor vehicles. As a result it is now able to enter the "Guinness Book of Records". I hope that others will follow Wolverhampton's example.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that the important measurement is the percentage of unleaded petrol that is used in cars and not necessarily what is stocked in garages? Can she tell the House how that percentage compares with West Germany's progress?

Mrs. Bottomley: West Germany is already making greater progress than we are in the uptake of unleaded petrol. We have made rapid and fast progress. We want others who have cars that can be adjusted to get that done. Several million cars that could use unleaded petrol still need adjustment. It is an area where helping the wallet also helps the environment. The Government are committed to take all possible opportunities to promote and encourage the uptake of unleaded petrol. We hope that environmentalists will take steps that are already within their power and use unleaded petrol which protects the environment.

Mr. Adley: Welcome though the progress in unleaded petrol is, does my hon. Friend agree that if we are seriously

concerned to deal with the major environmental problem called the internal combustion engine, we should look at the Californian example? Will my hon. Friend, therefore, please obtain from the state government of California full details of their proposal to eliminate completely the internal combustion engine by the early years of the next century? Will she put those details in the Library and give the Government of which she is a member a target of achieving the same objective here?

Mrs. Bottomley: Perhaps I should ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether I can go on a ministerial visit to California to look at the arrangements there. I shall look into this matter further. Already, people can avoid churning the equivalent of 300 double-decker bus loads of lead into the environment every year. Lead is a cumulative poison, which is potentially damaging to children's health and development, and it is time that people made sure that they were not unnecessarily polluting the environment.

Rent and Rate Arrears

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the level of rent and rate arrears in London.

Mr. Gummer: At 1 April 1988, the rent and rate arrears of London authorities amounted to £350 million—just under half the total for England. Arrears ranged from less than 5 per cent. of the annual rent and rates due for such authorities as Hillingdon and Barking and Dagenham, to some 20 per cent. or more for Brent, Lambeth and Southwark. High arrears can be attributed only to the boroughs' poor management. It is for authorities to see that rent and rates are collected, but the measures that I announced last Monday should encourage greater financial discipline.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister recognise, as many authorities including Tory authorities do, that the massive increases in rent arrears result, substantially, from the Government's £650 million housing benefit cuts last year? Does the Minister accept that, as the Government's policy unfolds next year, with the poll tax and rent increases, the tenants who pay their rents regularly will be picking up the tab for the barrage of Government policies that, increasingly, penalise the poor?

Mr. Gummer: That cannot possibly be true, because if it were, the rent and rate arrears in the Labour-run authorities of Hillingdon, Dagenham and Barking would be similar to those in Labour-run Brent, Lambeth and Southwark, but they are not. Arrears in Brent are bad because, until recently, it did not even have a list of its tenants and the keys to its council houses were being sold in Nigeria. It is not surprising that it cannot collect the rents.

Mr. Bowis: Are not the biggest lists for rent arrears, rate arrears and squatted properties in London in the Labour-run boroughs? Are not such boroughs cheating on the homeless and on those who desperately need repairs to their homes? Is it not high time for those who, loyally and legally, pay their rates and rents to have some recompense from such dissolute councils?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. If rents are not collected, other people have to pay for them, whether they are the ratepayers or other tenants. In those authorities that already do not subsidise their rent from ratepayers, the other tenants have already been contributing. Some boroughs do not collect the rents because their system of rent collection is extremely inefficient, and they have no intention of collecting it. When a borough has on its arrears committee a councillor who is herself in considerable arrears, it is not surprising that people do not pay their rents.

Dr. Cunningham: I believe that the Minister is aware that the leaders of Brent borough council in particular recognise the force of what he is saying and have made it clear to him that they are making strenuous new efforts to resolve the problems of rent arrears, as they should be doing. Will the Minister reflect again on the answer that he has just given to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who was asking for protection for tenants who pay their rents? Is the hon. Gentleman aware, as the Minister is because he announced it, that the Government are planning additionally to place burdens on those tenants by making them pay for that shortfall?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at the programme that was announced by Brent. I have done some work on the more detailed programme produced by the Labour-controlled London borough of Southwark. If it proceeds with its new tougher policy, it should have started before the Spanish Armada had arrived if it wanted to collect its rent arrears by today. The borough will collect only a tiny proportion—£78,000 a year—of rent arrears of £37 million.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Treat this seriously.

Mr. Gummer: It is all right for the hon. Lady, but the people who pay for those rent arrears are the tenants and the ratepayers who pay their rents and rates. Why should the tenants of Barking and Dagenham pay for the inefficency of the Labour council in Southwark? Why should the tenants of Hillingdon pay for the inefficiency of the Labour party in Brent? We must have an efficient system, and if Brent collected its rents the paying tenants would not have to suffer. Because of the Opposition's rottweiler tendency, they are determined not to listen to the facts—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very unseemly to make animal noises.

Mr. Gummer: Because the Opposition do not want to hear the facts—which are that the tenants and the ratepayers who pay their rent and rates have to carry the cost of those who do not—the rottweiler tendency wins again.

Sports Council

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Sports Council; and what matters were discussed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I have met the chairman of the Sports Council on a number of informal

occasions since his appointment on 20 May. My first formal meeting with him will be on 3 July when we will discuss the council's corporate plan.

Mr. Campbell: During the Minister's meetings with the chairman of the Sports Council, did he discuss the potential damage to the Commonwealth games next year if rugby players from the United Kingdom accept invitations to play in centenary matches in South Africa? In particular, did he discuss with Mr. Yarranton the potential conflict between his two positions as chairman of the Sports Council and vice-chairman of the Rugby Football Union?
Is the Minister satisfied that all the members of the Sports Council support the Gleneagles agreement, which is the policy of Her Majesty's Government and which, with a few erratic exceptions, is supported by all proper-minded Members of this House?

Mr. Moynihan: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened to my answer, he would have heard me say that I have yet to meet the new chairman of the Sports Council formally. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the chairman's views on apartheid are quite clear. In a press statement on 12 June he said:
I abhor the apartheid system of South Africa as I do all forms of racialism. As chairman of the Sports Council I shall do my utmost to support the Gleneagles agreement.

Mr. Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that many users of watersports facilities on rivers and lakes would not want consent levels for sewage works to be relaxed because that might pollute rivers unnecessarily? Has he received any representations from the Sports Council on that matter?

Mr. Moynihan: I have indeed discussed that subject with the Sports Council, although not yet with the new chairman. One point that he has welcomed in the water privatisation measures is the fact that we are going further than we have ever gone before to protect and enhance the use of our water courses for sport and recreation. I am sure that my hon. Friend will warmly welcome that.

Mr. Denis Howell: Does the Minister appreciate that press statements or letters on the very important subject of apartheid and the involvement of British sportsmen in South African sport are inadequate? Is he aware that the Gleneagles agreement calls upon him and Government Ministers, as a duty, urgently to combat those evils
by taking every practical step to discourage contact or competition"?
What urgent and practical steps has the hon. Gentleman taken and how does he intend to protect not only the Commonwealth games in Auckland but the world student games in Sheffield and the Manchester Olympic bid, all of which are at great risk because of the Government's inactivity on such a desperately important subject?

Mr. Moynihan: I wrote to the president of the Rugby Football Union on 17 May drawing attention to the Government's commitment to the Gleneagles agreement and the implications that such a tour may have for other sports. I strongly discouraged the passing on of invitations to players to compete in South Africa. I have also spoken to the RFU and colleagues in Scotland and Wales have written in similar terms to their respective unions. The


Government are fully committed to the Gleneagles agreement, but in a free society such as ours their role is limited to giving advice and seeking to persuade.

Ivory

Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures were agreed at the recent meeting of European Community Environment Ministers to ban trade in ivory.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Environment Council strongly supported the United Kingdom Government's proposal for an immediate ban on the import into the Community of raw and worked ivory.

Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for that positive result. Is she aware that the British people are delighted by the Government's strong lead in trying to stamp out that evil trade? One could say that we are in a position to blow our trumpet. What success has my hon. Friend had in persuading other countries to follow our example?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for his tribute. My noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside visited Kenya and was most successful with the initiative taken at the Environment Council. All members of the Community now ban raw and worked ivory, Hong Kong has taken further steps to ban imports, Japan is strengthening its controls, and the United Arab Emirates have announced their intention to become parties once again to the CITES agreement.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that elephant tusks from east Africa tend to be shaped differently from those originating in central and southern Africa, yet photographs of tusks imported into Britain and Europe over the past few months supposedly from central and southern Africa clearly originated from the Kenya national parks and are a result of the serious poaching there? In view of the corrupt, irresponsible and illegal nature of such activities in east Africa, will the Minister ensure not only that a ban is enforced by Britain and Europe but that there is a great deal more international effort to stop that particularly disgraceful trade?

Mrs. Bottomley: Very great care was taken to control such legitimate trade as was allowed through the ivory trade monitoring unit at CITES, which has worked closely with our Customs and with our managing agents in the countries concerned. As a result of concern about the species, we decided that the African elephant should be included in appendix I of CITES, which will outlaw all ivory trade.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While warmly welcoming my hon. Friend's reply and the very fine example set by the United Kingdom, is she not afraid that by banning ivory we could drive that evil trade underground? Is she aware that South Africa and Namibia have found ways of cutting out illegal poaching, though both countries are so openly criticised by Opposition Members?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am well aware of the steps taken by the countries that my hon. Friend mentions to control the ivory trade. Our primary concern must be the conservation of the species, and we have decided that the time is right

for the African elephant to be included in appendix I of CITES together with the Indian elephant, and to outlaw trade in its ivory.

Football Identity Cards

Mr. Cunliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with fellow European Ministers of Sport on producing a common European football identity card.

Mr. Moynihan: None. I gave a report on developments on a national membership scheme for England and Wales at the sixth conference of European Ministers with responsibility for sport in Reykjavik from 30 May to 1 June during the discussion on spectator violence. European Governments are kept informed about the scheme through our membership of the Council of Europe standing committee on spectator violence.

Mr. Cunliffe: Is it not a fact that European Ministers laughed out of court the Minister for Sport's proposal for a common European football identity card, which was also condemned by the European Football Association? It is their belief and ours that it would militate against genuine football supporters as against the hooligan element. Can the Minister explain why Britain is once again out of step with Europe?

Mr. Moynihan: The answer to all the hon. Gentleman's questions is no. At Reykjavik European Ministers warmly supported our determination to stamp out football hooliganism and the package of measures, including the Football Spectators Bill, that we are putting in place. That may be the reason why Holland and Spain are considering their own membership schemes—which will, rightly, be drawn up as appropriate for the problems that those countries face.

Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend waste no more time on the European dimension? It will be difficult enough for us to operate the scheme here without worrying about what they do in Italy.

Mr Moynihan: As my hon. Friend will know, I am merely answering the question tabled for my response, and that covers Europe. Suffice it to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend about the practicality of the scheme in this country. The strong commitment of the Government and the vote last night has shown not only that we shall see the scheme in place, but that it will prove a very important measure in ending the problems of violence associated with football in this country.

Calls Development Area, Leeds

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received over the decision by the Leeds development corporation to use its compulsory purchase powers to acquire riverside land in the Calls development area in Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Trippier: None, Sir, other than those from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister recognise that the use of compulsory powers by Leeds development corporation has caused considerable consternation among local


businesses? When will this Government-appointed body—made up entirely of place men responsible to the Secretary of State—take account of the wishes of local business, and when will it recognise that its chairman has now completely lost the confidence of local business and will soon lose that of the local chamber of commerce as well?

Mr. Trippier: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's final comment. As for his substantive question, no compulsory

purchase order has been laid for the area that he mentions. The Leeds development corporation will proceed in exactly the same way as local councils which prefer to negotiate without the use of the CPO.
I find it amazing that the hon. Gentleman loses no opportunity to attack the Leeds development corporation simply because it was the present Government's idea. The truth is that the corporation is doing a tremendous amount of good for Leeds, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should join with it to try to achieve its objectives.

Points of Order

Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although they have not yet been printed in Hansard, I wonder whether your attention has been drawn to remarks made last night by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) about our late colleague Mr. Airey Neave. In the course of his speech, the hon. Gentleman asserted that Mr. Neave had been involved in treason.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Neave was more than a personal friend to those of us who were old enough to serve in the second world war and then together in this House. You will also know that outside this place he was one of the most admired and courageous of all our war heroes. The hon. Member's remarks, which are now widely current, have deeply wounded not only Conservative Members, but many Opposition Members who knew Mr. Neave's qualities.
My question to you, Sir, is twofold. First, was it in order for the hon. Gentleman to make such an infamous charge, and, if not, what action can you take? Secondly, if by some strange quirk it was in order for the hon. Gentleman to use the privilege of this place to make such an assertion, in the light of the hurt that it will cause not merely to hon. Members but to the family of our late colleague—whose arms are here to remind us of his significance to our country in its hour of danger—have you received any indication from the Leader of the Opposition, or from anyone speaking on his behalf, that his attention has been drawn to the matter and that he has reprimanded the hon. Gentleman and repudiates what he has said?

Mr. Speaker: The matter has been drawn to my attention. Of course, I have not had an opportunity, nor has the House, of reading it in Hansard. What was said was in order in terms of free speech in this place, but I must say to the whole House that successive Committees of Privileges and Procedure have drawn attention to the obligation on hon. Members to use their freedom of speech with responsibility. The Chair makes no comment on individual speeches that are in breach of no rule of the House, but I trust that there will be general support throughout the House for the proposition that hon. Members should avoid expressing themselves in ways that are bound to cause deep offence.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was one of six hon. Members who were in the House when the statement was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I am bound to wonder whether my hon. Friend was informed that this point of order would be raised so that he could have been in the Chamber on this occasion.

Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of that.

Mr. Ian Gow: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The late Mr. Airey Neave had been mentioned in dispatches for gallantry and had been awarded the military OBE, the Military Cross and the Distinguished Service Order, yet last evening it was alleged in the House that he was involved in treason.
There are few people of whom it can be said that he could never do anything dishonourable, but one of those few of whom it could be said is Airey Neave. He served his

country in war with exemplary courage, and this House in peace with exemplary fidelity. Airey Neave is not able to be here to defend himself, but his friends wish to defend him.
Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, to attack a former Member of the House who cannot defend himself, and would it be in order for you to give a ruling that assaults on the dead involving a charge of treason should in future be out of order?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take together all the points of order on this subject.

Sir Hector Monro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to be associated with the remarks of my hon. Friends who have spoken on behalf of Airey Neave. I have read, as I am sure many other hon. Members have, the reports in the Library of last night's Adjournment debate, and I confirm that the wording of what was said was disgraceful. On no fewer than three occasions was Airey Neave accused of treason.
I do not believe that we can leave matters as they are and simply say that what was said was in order and that nothing more can be done about it. I suggest that we must call on the shadow Leader of the House or the Leader of the Opposition to come to the House and apologise on behalf of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who behaved in a quite disgraceful way. Such lack of courtesy should not be accepted by the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If what the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has said were to be the case, you might decide that it would be a good idea for an inquiry to be held into the facts surrounding the allegations that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) last night.
While you are about it, Mr. Speaker, it might be a good idea for that inquiry to call on the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to substantiate the allegations that he made against all Labour Members recently about their connections with the KGB. If it is good enough for an issue such as that to be raised, let us have a wholesale inquiry into all the allegations that are made by the Tories.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). Surely it cannot be proper for the holder of two of the greatest awards for gallantry in the field, who was murdered within the precincts of the House by the INLA and who was a much loved and respected Member of the House to be slandered in such a grotesque and contemptible manner. If there is no provision for you to make a ruling, Mr. Speaker, let the House decide that such allegations should never be made about an hon. Member ever again.

Mr. Ron Brown: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not know Airey Neave—perhaps it is better that way—so I will not speak ill of the dead. Whether or not he was involved with the security forces I cannot tell. However, if we talk about the living and about this House, it is interesting to note that at no time, or certainly rarely, does it rise to the occasion and


protect Socialist Members who are on the Left and who speak about certain issues, when repeatedly we are libelled and slandered. That has been going on for some time.
As my good comrade, if I may call him that, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said, a certain individual in the south of England has made allegations that have been used by the Foreign Office against myself and others. If anyone ought to be investigated, that person ought to be investigated. The Foreign Office and the Government should be investigated, too, because they are totally corrupt.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I am not in favour of attacks on the dead, but I wish to make my position perfectly clear. It was a great pity that the Father of the House did not stop his point of order before he reached the stage where he turned it into a political issue. The key point is whether it was an insult to the late Airey Neave to say what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said about him during the Adjournment debate last night. Adjournment debates are the responsibility of the individual Member who is allocated half an hour at the end of the day's proceedings. It had nothing whatever to do with any political party in the House. [Interruption.] It is all right for Conservative Members to snigger and laugh. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is standing there sniggering.
However, I say to them, particularly to the Father of the House and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), that if they intend to turn this into the kind of political issue that they are in danger of turning it into they are just as guilty—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ewing: I want this point to be heard, Mr. Speaker. They are just as guilty of besmirching the memory of Airey Neave as any other hon. Member who attacks him, now that he is no longer with us.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can pursue the matter any further. We have freedom of speech in this place, as all hon. Members know. Every right hon. and hon. Member must take responsibility for what he says here. What was said last night I personally deprecate, naturally, since I also knew Airey Neave. I think that the whole House accepts that he was a patriot in the true sense of the word. However, what was said by the hon. Member concerned was his responsibility and it was in breach of no rule of the House.

Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot pursue the matter, but go on.

Mr. Walker: I am sorry if you feel, Mr. Speaker, that in some way I am taking advantage of the House, but those of us who have service backgrounds are conscious of the fact that some individuals who served their country during the second world war did so under appalling conditions, particularly those in prison camps. There are generations living today who do not understand the emotions and the feelings of those who were involved in those circumstances and situations. That is why it is important that hon. Members who make speeches about

individuals who lived through those circumstances should bear in mind the record of the individual, as against the allegations.

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have already given you notice. You will recall that during yesterday's debate on the Football Spectators Bills the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) tried to besmirch the good name of racing by saying that there were 600 arrests at Ascot. Subsequently, I ascertained from the assistant chief constable of Thames Valley that in fact there were only 32 arrests. The hon. Gentleman, who is here to defend himself—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot return to that debate. Please raise the point of order with me.

Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman, who is here to defend himself, then said that he did not say last week; he said last year. I then checked on the number of arrests last year. The figure was not 600 then, either; it was a similar figure to that for last week.
I did not wish to raise the matter today, because I should have liked to have the opportunity to ascertain exactly what the hon. Member for Copeland said in the debate late last night. I am told by Hansard that I am not allowed to look at the speech of any other hon. Member until it has been printed, in the same way as you, Mr. Speaker, said that you cannot see what the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said until it has been printed. However, the hon. Member for Copeland is able to check what he said before it is printed. Last night I was told by Hansard that if the hon. Gentleman had wanted to check what he had said and correct the false information that he, as a Front-Bench spokesman in a major debate had given to the House, he could have cleared his name and that of horse racing.

Mr. John Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I had better have the first bite.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) did me the courtesy of informing me that he would raise this matter. Page 264 of "Erskine May" states:
It is not in order for a Member to obtain or to quote during a current sitting the record made for the Official Report of the remarks of any other Member.
That is a long-standing rule. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have it changed, he must draw it to the attention of the Procedure Committee.

Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) were not so unpleasant, boorish and graceless in his approach to debates, the matter could have been settled quite simply yesterday evening and we need not have detained the House today. The hon. Gentleman could have had the text of my speech, which was lying on the Table of the House.
I used figures that were used in the Second Reading debate in the House of Lords on 2 February 1989. Those figures were obtained by my noble Friend Lord Graham of Edmonton. He obtained them for Ascot week last year. They relate to all arrests in and around the vicinity of Ascot and the racecourse, including public transport to and from the course. The figures were provided 6y the local police.

Mr. Holt: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any further points of order. We cannot have a continuation of last night's debate.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the two motions on statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Solicitors (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments,&amp;—[Mr. Chapman.]

Postal Services (Reform)

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower organisations other than the Royal Mail to provide a postal service; and for connected purposes.
The Bill seeks to abolish the Post Office's exclusive privileges to carry letters around the United Kingdom under section 66 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981, to promote competition, encouraging incentive and new services to improve efficiency and thus to improve standards of services to customers of the Royal Mail and existing costs.
The Bill follows two Bills proposed by my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) in January and February this year and an Adjournment debate on the subject last month. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) called the matter a "hardy annual". It is now becoming a triannual and reflects the urgency felt in the House and by the public at large about the declining standards of service in the Post Office and the urgent action required to remedy it.
The Royal Mail service will soon be a 21st-century service with a 17th-century pedigree. In 1657, Cromwell put the existing monopoly on a statutory basis, not for reasons of efficiency or economies of scale, but because of the use of the post for
many and wicked designs which have been and are daily contrived against the peace and welfare of the Commonwealth.
That paranoia about security and absence of objective thinking seems to have been extended down the ages to many who unthinkingly oppose the abolition of the monopoly to this day.
However, it does not take much objectivity to identify the present concern about standards. The Post Office itself does so in its annual reports and accounts. In 1979, it identified "unsatisfactory postal services". In 1986, it said:
Quality of services falls short of target.
In 1987, it said:
Continuing traffic growth and considerable industrial unrest made it difficult to meet the quality of service targets.
In 1988 it talked of 213 unofficial disputes, 63,500 working days lost and no fewer than 126 million letters being delayed. In its report this year, the Post Office will no doubt reveal that last year's postal strike caused the loss of 1·2 million working days and that delivery standards declined.
Further afield, evidence comes from the London School of Economics, which said:
The quality of services is probably no better, and may be worse, than in 1971".
In May this year, the Post Office Users National Council talked about its dismay about the delay in introducing improvements designed as part of last year's tariff package and it declared itself far from satisfied with the quality of service figures resulting from the new basis of measurement, which was a realistic door-to-door basis of measurement. Colleagues no doubt have anecdotal evidence from their constituencies which would amplify the problems many times over.
The Post Office argues that its volumes increased by 30 per cent. over five years, that it has created 18,000 jobs and that it will invest about £620 million over the next three years. However, one might ask why, if volumes are increasing so much and if economies of scale are so


important, there are no improvements in service. Equally, the Post Office might argue that a monopoly guarantees through a national service a quality of service that is expected by the general public. In the past five years, there have been many interruptions. Last year, one sixth of all days lost through strikes and stoppages were in the Post Office. That contradicts the Post Office assertions. The Post Office might argue that a monopoly is necessary to protect services in rural areas, although it agrees that there is no reason why those costs could not be made explicit and the Post Office compensated by potential competitors for the diseconomies of scale that might be revealed.
Irrespective of those arguments, the Post Office monopoly is not delivering a sufficient standard of service. As The Times said last September:
In return for accepting the monopoly, the customer does require that the service should be reliable".
Sadly, it is not and delivery standards appear to be declining. The Post Office Users National Council carried out a door-to-door survey in February and found that only 79 per cent. of first-class mail reached the doorstep by the following working day. The target is 100 per cent. By May, that proportion had declined to 72 per cent. In some districts, such as Peterborough, only half the first-class service reached districts regarded as distant the next day and only 61 per cent. reached districts next door to the home district the next day.
The results of a survey by the Mail Users Association are even worse. Over a period of 18 months, from June 1987 to March 1989, fewer than two thirds of first-class letters reached their destinations the following day. The second-class service has become a fairly unfunny joke. The so-called standards maintained by the Post Office are maintained at 90 per cent. only by continually moving the goalposts. In 1975, the target was moved from delivery on the second day after posting to the third day after posting. In 1978, that became the third day after the letters were collected, as opposed to after they were posted.
The present position is totally unsatisfactory. My argument is that, as in every other area of human economic endeavour, be it clothing, foods or utilities, competition forces the economy to respond to the needs of the consumer. That will apply in the case of this monopoly also.
It is significant that, in 1987, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), then the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pointing to a bad year for industrial relations in the Post Office, said:
We must consider whether it is secure as a monopoly carrier.
In 1988, the situation was considerably worse, and he was still considering. The present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster voted in 1976 and 1979 for the abolition of the monopoly. Even Alan Tuffin has said:
We accept that we may have to live with competition. We will take it on and beat it.
The Post Office Board and the Mail Users Association are both in favour of competition. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently stated:
I agree that greater competition would be good, and we may have to consider ending the monopoly on the postal letter service, which would bring welcome competition."— [Official Report, 6 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 15.]
If any further evidence were needed, I offer the fact that, since the parcel service was opened to competition, its

turnover has increased dramatically, as have its profits, to £32·2 million this year. It has extended its services and it is providing a better quality of service for the public.
There are a number of suggestions about the form that such competition should take. I do not believe that there should be a free-for-all, achieved by reducing the minimum charge from the present £1 to a nominal amount, because there would be problems of supervision and other complex problems and no significant competition except in specialist areas. Equally, trying to duplicate what has happened with British Telecom and having a Mercury-type competitor on a national basis would unnecessarily restrict entry to the market, involve huge infrastructure costs and mean that competition was unrealistic in the short term.
Two scenarios have the informal agreement of the Post Office as pragmatic and viable. They would give uniform pricing for a nominal service and guarantee deliveries in any particular area. They would also be co-operative and would use the existing Post Office infrastructure. One scenario involved companies being given licences on a regional and district basis for collection, sorting and local delivery. The other, which is supported by many people in the Post Office and by the Mail Users Association—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman would remain in good order if he now concluded.

Mr. Coombs: The last word should be left to Roland Hill, who was born in my constituency and who was the father of the penny post. When advocating the abolition of the Post Office monopoly, which he called an offence to our statute book, he said that abolition would allow the
probable rise of a wholesome competition wherever the service is performed with less than the greatest efficiency and cheapness".
The British public deserve greater efficiency and cheapness. I commend my Bill to the House.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Fortunately, Roland Hill was born before the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) became the Member for Parliament for that constituency, which is something for which we must be thankful.
Speeches on this issue never change. I should declare my interest right at the beginning of my opposition to this ten-minute Bill. I am sponsored by the Union of Communication Workers.
When the hon. Gentleman said that the public wanted urgency in the privatisation or liberalisation of the Post Office, call it what one will, he was failing to take account of recent surveys and public opinion polls. The morning after the Prime Minister gave her broad hint that she was in favour of breaching the monopoly, Derek Jameson had a phone-in on his BBC radio programme. It went on until the Friday morning and showed that 68 per cent. of people in this country are in favour of maintaining the monopoly and that only 32 per cent. are in favour of breaching it. In anybody's language that is a substantial majority in favour of retaining the status quo, and there are, of course, good reasons for that, especially for people living in rural areas.
I shall repeat what I said in January and again in February. For the time being— I emphasise "for the time being"—rural areas are represented by Conservative Members of Parliament. It therefore always astonishes me


that Conservative Members are prepared to come to the House and present ten-minute Bills that would put their constituents at a most serious disadvantage in terms of the postal services. I am convinced that most constituents do not know what their Members of Parliament are up to when they come to the House. It is well known that all the surveys and costings have shown that in the rural areas the cost of sending a letter would be at least £1. The great advantage of the monopoly and the universal postal system is that there is a universal postal rate. Whether a letter is posted in Orkney or in Shetland and sent down to St. Ives in Cornwall, or vice versa, it costs the same as a letter posted in London to another address in London.
The Post Office workers accept that the monopoly places upon them a responsibility to deliver a service. I agree with the hon. Member for Wyre Forest that there is always room for improvement. Those who work in the service are just as keen as—if not keener—than the hon. Gentleman to improve the service. To bring about the improvements that my colleagues in the Post Office want would be more difficult than the difficulty the hon. Gentleman has had in presenting his rather silly Bill.
I say to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest as kindly as I can that he does not understand some of the problems that the Post Office has to put up with. One major problem is the concentration of postings at 5 o'clock at night. Big businesses do not post twice or three times a day; they post only once a day. If big businesses could discipline themselves to post two or three times a day, many of the Post Office's problems would be removed.
Another major problem is envelopes that are put through meters to be franked. I advise Conservative Members to do as I do and to check the date on the letter against the date on the envelope. I receive letters repeatedly, especially from Government Departments, on which the date is five days previous to that on the envelope. That has nothing to do with the Post Office, but is the fault of those who process the meters.
As kindly and as gently as I can, I point out to Conservative Members that, after the tragic incident at Lockerbie, the Secretary of State for Transport protested that he had posted a letter and he blamed the Post Office for the fact that it had not been received. It was disgraceful that it was said that the letter was posted on 19 December and was lost in the Christmas mail, although it was later discovered that it was not posted until 20 January. That is is how easy it is for people to blame the Post Office.
The Abbey National building society, when it was changing its status, did exactly the same. It blamed the Post Office when its shareholders had not received their letters, but it had not even put the letters in the mail.
When Conservative Members begin to understand the Post Office's problems, especially those that I have highlighted, they can talk about inefficiency. Until that time, we should continue to throw out such Bills.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 161.

Division No. 265]
[4.03 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Atkinson, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony





Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Kirkhope, Timothy


Brazier, Julian
Lawrence, Ivan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Budgen, Nicholas
Mans, Keith


Burns, Simon
Mills, Iain


Carrington, Matthew
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Cash, William
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Colvin, Michael
Paice, James


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Patnick, Irvine


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Pawsey, James


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Curry, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Day, Stephen
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Redwood, John


Evennett, David
Riddick, Graham


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Sayeed, Jonathan


Favell, Tony
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Forman, Nigel
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Fry, Peter
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Gill, Christopher
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gow, Ian
Summerson, Hugo


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gregory, Conal
Thorne, Neil


Hague, William
Tredinnick, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Warren, Kenneth


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Watts, John


Holt, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Wilshire, David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Winterton, Nicholas


Irvine, Michael



Janman, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mr. Nicholas Bennett and


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Mr. John Bowis.


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Allen, Graham
Dewar, Donald


Alton, David
Dixon, Don


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Doran, Frank


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Douglas, Dick


Ashton, Joe
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barron, Kevin
Eadie, Alexander


Battle, John
Eastham, Ken


Beggs, Roy
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bell, Stuart
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Benyon, W.
Fatchett, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boateng, Paul
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fraser, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fyfe, Maria


Buckley, George J.
Galbraith, Sam


Caborn, Richard
Galloway, George


Callaghan, Jim
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gould, Bryan


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Graham, Thomas


Clay, Bob
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coleman, Donald
Hardy, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Haynes, Frank


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Cox, Tom
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Crowther, Stan
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cryer, Bob
Hoyle, Doug


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Darling, Alistair
Illsley, Eric






Janner, Greville
Richardson, Jo


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Robertson, George


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rogers, Allan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, Jeff


Kennedy, Charles
Rowlands, Ted


Kilfedder, James
Ruddock, Joan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Salmond, Alex


Lambie, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Leadbitter, Ted
Sheerman, Barry


Leighton, Ron
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sillars, Jim


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McKelvey, William
Snape, Peter


McLeish, Henry
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maclennan, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Strang, Gavin


Marshall. David (Shettleston)
Straw, Jack


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maxton, John
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Meale, Alan
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Michael, Alun
Turner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Vaz, Keith


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wallace, James


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wareing, Robert N.


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Morgan, Rhodri
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mullin, Chris
Wigley, Dafydd


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wilson, Brian


O'Brien, William
Winnick, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Worthington, Tony


Patchett, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Pike, Peter L.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Prescott, John



Radice, Giles
Tellers for the Noes:


Redmond, Martin
Mr. Norman Hogg and


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Mr. Dave Nellist.


Reid, Dr John

Question accordingly negatived.

OPPOSITION DAY

[17th ALLOTTED DAY] [Second Part]

Scotland in Europe

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I beg to move,
That this House notes the continued and overwhelming rejection of the Conservative Party's colonial regime in Scotland, the willingness of the Labour Party leadership to place Trident submarines on the Clyde against the wishes of the Scottish Labour Conference and majority Scottish opinion, the results of the European elections which saw the Scottish National Party gain 26 per cent. of the vote and move into a clear second place in Scottish politics, the continued alienation of the United Kingdom from its European partners and the obstruction to European Community co-operation presented by the Prime Minister's little Englander attitudes; and recognises that the only constitutional change which can meet fully the need for economic and social progress in Scotland is independence as a full and equal partner within the European Community.
The House will note that our motion refers to the Government's colonial attitude to Scotland. I know that his description of their policy programme has caused some anxiety to the Tory party in the past, and particularly to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has been anxious to disavow a quotation of 8 March attributed to him by the Scottish Field:
In fact the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland are not unlike those of a colonial governor.
If the Secretary of State maintains that he did not say that, the House will have to accept his word, although I am still perplexed about why the Scottish Field of all magazines should want to make up the quotation. However, the case for saying that the Tory party treats Scotland like a colony does not depend on quotations, accurate or otherwise: it rests on actions and facts.
The case rests on the actions of this Government in a range of policies, from the poll tax, to opting out in education, to the review of the National Health Service. In these areas the Government's policy programme is being imposed against the overwhelming body of Scottish opinion, using what the Secretary of State used to call—he does so less now—the "Gatling gun" of the Tory majority in this place and the army of political appointees north of the border who do the Tory bidding.
I was struck on Monday of this week by the irony in Brian Meek's column in the Glasgow Herald. He is something of a soulmate or confidant of the Secretary of State for Scotland, more so perhaps than is the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). Councillor Meek complained in the column about being bumped off the Lothian and Borders police board. He complained that the Tory party representatives on that board were being reduced from three to one, and said that it was disgraceful that the Labour party majority on the committee should abuse its powers in that way.
Councillor Meek may have a point in this case. The majority party on a committee should not use its powers to reduce the representation of minorities. The irony lies in the fact that I cannot remember Councillor Meek ever having written a column in the Glasgow Herald or


anywhere else in which he noted the complexion of, for example, the health boards in Scotland. Trade union representation and opposition party representation on those boards has been systematically reduced by this Government. We look forward to Councillor Meek regaling Scotland on the unfairness of this—

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 10 of the 15 members of the Forth Valley health board live in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)? Not one comes from the highly industrialised constituency of Falkirk, East and of the others, a small number are shared between Falkirk, West and Clackmannan. Is that the sort of bias to which he is referring?

Mr. Salmond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and aware of what he says. My colleagues and I recently met a Scottish Trades Union Congress delegation, which gave us the facts and figures of how this pattern is being replicated all over Scotland. So it was ironic that Councillor Meek mentioned the Lothian and Borders police board but did not refer to anywhere else in Scotland —or even to his own appointment as a prominent member of Livingston development corporation. I do not think that the new town of Livingston has ever elected a Conservative councillor in its electoral history. So throughout Scotland there is a colonial system of government imposed by the Tory majority.

Mr. George Robertson: I was somewhat puzzled when I read the Order Paper because it says:
This Opposition Day is at the disposal of the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13. The selection of the matter to be debated has been made by the Scottish National Party.
I cannot help wondering whether there is a quid pro quo involved in the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) giving up this day. May I ask the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) a question? We know that the SNP is in favour of an independent Scotland in Europe and that it is also in favour of an independent Wales in Europe. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is in favour of an independent Ulster in Europe?

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates his ignorance of House procedures. I know that he has been here for some time but he has learnt very little. As I understand it, under Standing Order No. 13 the second Opposition party in the House is the Ulster Unionist party because of the name change and the disintegration of the alliance parties after the election. Just as in the previous Parliament it was the prerogative of the alliance to allocate the second party Opposition day, that is now the prerogative of the Ulster Unionist party. I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing more sinister in the Supply day than that. [Interruption.]
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a great believer in the self-determination of nations. I believe in self-determination for the Scottish nation, the Welsh nation and the Irish nation. I should be interested to hear at some time from the hon. Gentleman how he squares his support for self-determination for peoples across five continents with his refusal to accept it in the one country, Scotland, where he has any influence.
I was making the point that there is a colonial system of government in Scotland, imposed by Tory votes south of the border and implemented by Tory bagmen north of the border. In the argument about a colonial system of government, I can claim support from some sources in the Conservative party. Speaking in warning against colonial attitudes towards Scotland, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), said on Channel 4 on 18 March that he found it quite insulting that anybody should say of Scotland:
Oh, they can't possibly be a nation, they can't possibly have a national Government, they haven't got the population or the size',—it is an absolute nonsense of an argument, it is a patronising argument and on the lips of Englishmen it really is quite disgraceful because it's almost a proconsular argument, as though we were colonial peoples who hadn't yet got the resources for independence and that is complete and utter rubbish.
Those were wise words that will stand the test of time. They were wise words not just for the English Conservative party but also for the Scottish Labour party because increasingly it is taking its agenda from politics south of the border.
A couple of months ago, in an idle moment, I turned on my television. There at Inverness was the Scottish Labour party in full flight in conference. The motion on the agenda was on unilateral nuclear disarmament. I expected a strong debate. Given the fundamental reassessment that is taking place in Labour ranks I expected a spirited exchange of views. No, there was not. So great was the unanimity within the Scottish Labour party that that motion—a hard motion in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament—was passed without opposition, or at least overwhelmingly. That may reflect the consensus that exists in the Scottish Labour party. More realistically perhaps, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) did not think it worth while to argue the case at a Scottish Labour conference. For whatever reason, the Scottish Labour party reflected the consensus that exists in Scotland both for unilateral nuclear disarmament and against the Trident missile system.
The Labour party leadership in this place will not reflect that consensus. It will reflect the consensus between the two Front Benches, where the major differences are whether we shall have four or three Trident submarines stationed on the Clyde, whether the nuclear strike force will be increased by a factor of eight or four, or whether, as one delegate said yesterday at the Transport and General Workers Union conference, it is a Labour or a Tory finger on the nuclear button.
Presumably there are still left among Scottish Labour Members of Parliament some real unilateralists as well as some gut ones. Perhaps they should reflect on the Labour party's attempt to out-yuppie the Tory party. Just like the Tory party, Labour party policies are relegating the Scottish dimension to accommodate the requirements of an electoral system south of the border.
The Tory amendment to our motion makes the point that the SNP is also a minority party in Scotland. Perhaps there is no great difference between achieving 20 per cent., or a fifth, of the vote, which is what the Tory party achieved in Scotland last Thursday, and achieving 26 per cent., or a quarter, of the vote, which is what the SNP achieved in the Euro-elections. We feel that there are fairly substantial differences between us and them. One is that the SNP claims no mandate to run or govern Scotland until it obtains a majority of the seats and has a mandate


to negotiate independence. That is in clear contrast with the Tory party, which claims its mandate to run Scotland on a basis of 10 parliamentary seats, no European seats and a vote now reduced to 20 per cent.
Another substantive difference between the position of the SNP and the Tory party can be seen in the detail of Scottish opinion polls. Even at 20 per cent. of the vote, the Conservative party can at least claim that it is out-performing the support for the constitutional status quo in Scotland, which the latest MORI poll, in June, put at no more than 15 per cent. across Scotland. However, that is not the position of the SNP. Even with our vote rising to 26 per cent., we are under-performing when measured against the support for Scottish independence, shown in that poll to be 35 per cent., and when measured against the between 51 per cent. and 62 per cent. support for independence in Europe, shown in other polls.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I know that the hon. Gentleman is fastidious in these matters, so I make this point for the sake of accuracy. Is not the support for a Scotland independent in Europe at 22 per cent. in the latest MORI poll? The hon. Gentleman has added another factor—Scotland independent outwith the EEC—to get his 35 per cent.

Mr. Salmond: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman appreciates where his argument is leading him. Will he differentiate, in the devolution element of the poll, between his policy of independence from the United Kingdom, the Democrats' policy of quasi-federalism, the old devolution policy of the Labour party and the policy of David Martin, which is quite different from that of any of the other policies? We were given a choice between independence, devolution and the status quo. The figures that I have quoted are those recorded in the poll. I suspect that even the hon. Gentleman will not deny the figures of between 52 per cent. and 61 per cent. saying yes to a direct question of yes or no to independence in Europe, in three successive opinion polls.

Mr. Alistair Darling: May I pursue the hon. Gentleman on the question of independence for Scotland inside or outside Europe? As I understand it, the nationalists see much of their appeal coming from the fact that they are offering Scotland independence within the European Community. If the terms for Scotland remaining in the EEC are renegotiated and found to be unsatisfactory, do I take it that the nationalist line is independence outside Europe, come what may?

Mr. Salmond: I shall be dealing with that matter later in my speech.
The SNP policy is absolutely clear. If we obtain a majority of seats in Scotland at the next general election, we will have a mandate to negotiate independence with Westminster—

Mr. Darling: rose—

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall answer his question.
The SNP will have a mandate to negotiate independence with Westminster and simultaneously to negotiate with the EEC. The constitutional settlement resulting from that will be put to the Scottish people in a referendum, so the Scottish people will decide. I do not

understand how, as a democrat, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) could possibly object to that process—

Mr. Darling: rose—

Mr. Salmond: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue.
Despite the SNP's improvement to 26 per cent. of the vote, it is substantially under-performing, the support for independence shown in successive opinion polls. The SNP may not yet be winning the elections in Scotland, but it is winning the arguments—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Salmond: I wish that hon. Members would contain themselves.
When one wins the argument—

Mr. John Home Robertson: rose—

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose—

Mr. Salmond: I have been very generous in giving way to Labour Members. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later if he allows me to develop a few more points.
During the European election campaign I was struck by the similarities—as I will no doubt be similarly struck in this debate—in the arguments of the two main Unionist parties—the Tory party and the Labour party, Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The response to the independence in Europe argument makes that especially evident. Both Labour and Tory spokesmen have claimed that Scotland would not be allowed to be independent in Europe; that somehow the nasty foreigners would keep out Scotland—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Salmond: If hon. Members will allow me to develop a few points, I might be generous enough to give way later.
During the European election, the SNP published substantive legal opinion from Professor Victor McKinnon and the French advocate Maitre De Roux pointing out that the conventions of state succession and the treaty of Rome—[Interruption.] I cannot understand why Labour Members are laughing, because we published legal opinion from other Europeans. I should have thought that the views of other Europeans on this issue were very important.
Both those substantive legal opinions pointed out that the laws of state succession and the treaty of Rome would keep Scotland within the Community during the negotiations. There was an intervention in the debate by Professor Emile Noel who, until 1987, was the Secretary-General of the European Commission. Indeed, he held that position for more than 20 years and is probably the greatest living authority on Community rules and procedures. As far as I know, he has no axe to grind on Scottish politics. On 5 March he said about Scotland:
There is no precedent or provision for the expulsion of a member state, therefore Scottish independence would create two member states out of one … They would have equal status with each other and the other eleven states. The remainder of the UK would not be in a more powerful position than Scotland.


Professor Noel expanded on those remarks in an article in The Scotsman on 12 June. At the same time, The Scotsman revealed what had happened to the Conservative party legal opinion threatened to be commissioned by Mr. James Proven, who had promised to make it the centrepiece of his re-election campaign in the north-east of Scotland. The Scotsman revealed that senior Tory sources said that the Conservative party had decided not to publish that opinion because it was "ambiguous" and could be "misinterpreted".
The greatest living authority on EEC procedures—[Interruption.] I am surprised by the laughter that greets the credentials of Professor Emile Noel—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) need give way only if he chooses to do so.

Mr. Salmond: The position is that the greatest living authority on EC procedures volunteers support for the argument advanced by the SNP, while the Tory party cannot even pay someone to make their particular argument.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If, without payment, another living authority on that subject may comment—if the greatest living authority in France pronounces the concept that Scotland is already a member state, in order to make the point that there could be no objection to its being a separate member state, the whole basis of that opinion is false.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. and learned Gentleman should have read Professor Noel's article, for I am certain that he is well aware of Scotland's status and, having been the European Commission's Secretary-General for 20 years, of the procedures, regulations and likely reactions of the European Community.

Mr. David Curry: Does the hon. Gentleman distinguish between legal opinion—all those whose views he quoted are either lawyers or officials—and political reality? How many years does he envisage that the negotiations would take to complete? Does he accept that the last thing that countries such as Spain and France, with their separatist problems, want is to see the principle of separatism introduced into the Community? Negotiations would be long, painful and difficult—and the hon. Gentleman might not be in power by the time that they were completed.

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman had familiarised himself with the subject of today's debate, he would know that Professor Noel's article dealt with that aspect. Professor Noel wrote that Scotland's membership of the Community would be accepted, and that any negotiations would concern only matters of detail. I quote again from the article about Professor Noel in The Scotsman, stating that he
has confirmed his view that an independent Scotland would be entitled to EEC membership, with negotiation on the detail and not on the principle.
The suggestion by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr Curry) is deeply insulting, because it implies that Scotland has nothing of value that the Community

would find attractive—such as 80 per cent. of Europe's oil reserves and 40 per cent. of its fish reserves. Even more insulting—to other Europeans also—is the argument, made against all available evidence, that other member states would somehow want to flout the democratic will of the Scottish people.
Today's debate is about how Scotland's interests can best be represented in Europe and how Scotland can best be governed at home.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing to the House the important views of Professor Noel, although I must confess that I had not heard of him before. Why is the hon. Gentleman making those important arguments in this "colonial" Parliament, as he refers to it, when he has an opportunity to make them instead before a body that does represent the people of Scotland—the Scottish Constitutional Convention?

Mr. Salmond: If I were the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), I would not boast about not knowing the name of the person who has been Secretary-General of the European Commission for 20 years, for that displays his ignorance of European politics.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not "Mastermind".

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member for East Lothian knows very well that the Scottish National party is willing to have its arguments judged by the Scottish people, but it is not prepared to have a veto placed on them by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
The case made in Scotland by the Tories is remarkable. They say that somehow Scotland is better represented by English Tory Ministers chosen by the Prime Minister than by Scottish Ministers chosen by the people of Scotland. In reality, in most cases Scotland has no representation in Europe. In the two years to the end of 1988, out of 151 Council of Ministers meetings, representatives of the Scottish Office attended only five—and then in a junior capacity. Of the 95 major ministerial speeches made over the same period on Community topics, Scottish Office Ministers managed none at all. That is how influential the Scottish Office is in European policy determination.
Perhaps, as Member of Parliament for a constituency in north-east Scotland, I can take some consolation from the fact that the five meetings that Scottish Office Ministers managed to sneak into were all concerned with the fishing industry. In the House last week, however, we were given a working example of the priority that the Government allocate to that industry. The mid-year Council meeting made some fundamental decisions affecting the future finances of the Scottish fleet, and refused to act on the low Scottish North sea haddock quotas. The Government did not even consider it worth while to make an oral statement to the House, substituting a written answer in which the Scottish case was dismissed in two sentences. The fact is that Scotland is not represented at the top table where the real decisions are made. We are not represented but misrepresented by Tory Ministers who share neither our political values nor our industrial priorities: that is the reality of our provincial position in the Community.
When we had a similar debate last year, the Secretary of State for Scotland was unwise enough to unload some of his prejudices on to the House. He told us that the small countries of Europe rarely, if ever, had
a decisive role to play in the major issues that affect the Community."—[Official Report,July 1988, Vol. 136, c. 1089.]
I found those remarks interesting and later in the year I tested them by putting down some questions to the junior Foreign Office Minister, whose post was formerly held by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I received entirely different answers to similar questions.
This is what the junior Foreign Office Minister said about the role of small countries in Europe:
All member states, irrespective of their size, play an important role in the process of development of the Community.
She also said:
The treaties … provide for all member states to contribute on an equitable basis to Community decisionmaking."—[Official Report, 31 October 1989; Vol. 139, c. 483–484.]
There we have it. The official position of the Government is that small countries have an important role to play—except, of course, Scotland. We have the opportunity to build a consensus with our European partners, as all Community states must do, but that is something of which the Prime Minister is manifestly incapable.
Within the European Community, Scotland would have twice as many MEPs as at present, a Commissioner as of right, votes on the Council and a turn to lead the European Community through the presidency of the Council as a full and equal partner. We would have real influence in Europe to match real power in Scotland. That is the other side of the "Scotland in Europe" argument, and the argument for independence.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: If Scottish representation were expanded, would the new representatives sit with the current Scottish MEP, Mrs. Ewing, with the Gaullists and others on the Right wing? Why has Mrs. Ewing not resigned from that grouping?

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is manifestly out of date. The groupings in the European Parliament are currently being negotiated, and I am sure that Mrs. Ewing will continue to represent Scotland's interests. The hon. Gentleman will find that she has a superb voting record across a range of social and economic issues in the European Community. Clearly his lack of confidence in her is not shared by the electorate of the Highlands and Islands, who returned her to the European Parliament with a resounding majority.
I want to examine three examples of the domestic power that independence in Europe would give. At present the United Kingdom is pursuing policies that are not in Scotland's interest. The first example is monetary policy —the interaction between interest rate and exchange rate policy. No one in Scotland—not even, I suspect, the Secretary of State at his most effusive—would claim that the Scottish economy was overheating; the best that can be said is that it has undergone a slow recovery from the oil recession of 1986. Yet the monetary policy being applied in Scotland is designed to combat an overheated economy.
Can the Secretary of State tell us how inflationary pressures on the south-east of England will be eased by the imposition of penal interest rates on fishermen in the north-east of Scotland? How will a cost squeeze on

Scottish industry help the problems of the balance of payments? For Scotland, a high interest rate is not just a blunt instrument; it is the cure for a disease from which we do not suffer.
A recent paper from the Scottish Centre for Economic and Social Research pointed out that an independent Scotland we could look forward to low interest rates and a stable exchange rate regime as part of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS, regardless of whether sterling decided to join.
My second example is that of Wang leaving Stirling. Let me say to the Secretary of State that there seems little point in throwing a tantrum at Wang executives: I suspect that lecturing them will be as effective as lecturing Caterpillar executives has been in the past. Clearly the relationship between a country and multinational companies has little to do with size. The strength of a bargaining position depends not on the size of the economy—otherwise Wang would not be on its way to Limerick—but on the strength of the overall economy. [Interruption.] I see that Conservative Members do not take my point. Let us take the example of Norway in the 1970s—a country of 4·5 million people which managed by general agreement to negotiate a deal with the international oil companies far superior to that negotiated by the United Kingdom. The bargaining position of the Norwegian Government was helped by the strength of the country's economy.

Dr. John Reid: The hon. Gentleman might also reflect on Ireland in the 1960s. Through massive tax handouts, Ireland was able to bring in multinational companies for about 10 years; they disappeared as soon as the 10 years were up. The issue is related to size and economic muscle as well as to the wealth of the Government.
Can the hon. Gentleman answer a simple question? I have been wondering since I came into the Chamber why the hon. Gentleman moved the motion, rather than the leader of his party. Until now I had assumed that it was because the hon. Gentleman was considered to be better equipped to outline the intellectual basis for independence, but—knowing the attributes of the party leader, and having heard the hon. Gentleman's speech—I have had to abandon that assumption. Will he explain why he moved the motion?

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman may not know that the duties of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) have been curtailed over the past week by illness in the family. I shall not take the matter any further than that.

Dr. Reid: I did not know.

Mr. Salmond: No one would argue that multinational investment is not an important factor; it can be extremely valuable. The question is whether it is the sole arm of economic strategy, as it appears to be in Scotland at present. The key to a robust economic policy is building on resource strength, skill strength, areas of natural advantage and the promotion of indigenous companies. Those are exactly the economic policies that would be open to a Scottish Government.
If we had a Scottish Government this year it would he faced with a substantial budget surplus. Even hon. Members who suffer from the most dependent mentalities


should not be surprised at that: after all, the United Kingdom Treasury is awash with funds at present. But there is a substantial difference. The United Kingdom Treasury is boxed in by inflationary and balance of payments constraints. Those constraints would not be faced to the same extent by an independent Scotland.
The Scottish National party has published our proposals for the economic regeneration of Scotland. I look forward to the Labour party publishing similar proposals, or indeed any precise programme. The SNP's policy proposals would create 78,000 jobs in the first year as we embark on a regeneration strategy for the Scottish economy, projecting Scotland on to a higher rate of growth and employment.

Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. Gentleman, who has been talking about the budget that he has done for an independent Scotland in Europe, comment on the letter dated 14 June 1989 which appeared in The Scotsman from a well-known supporter of the SNP, Professor Malcolm Slessor, in which he said:
In fact, a financial forecast of what Scotland would be like as an independent country is about as meaningless as one of Chancellor Lawson's pieces of star-gazing.

Mr. Salmond: I commend the hon. Gentleman to read the SNP's economic plans for an independent Scotland.

Mr. Dewar: I have read them.

Mr. Salmond: In that case, he may have obtained some useful ideas and will now give us a clue about what the Labour party proposes for its first year in government for Scotland. I recall the Labour party's programme at the last general election, when it worked out its jobs plan for Scotland by dividing by 10 the figure that it promoted for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. William Cash: rose—

Mr. Salmond: The alternative to the economic regeneration of Scotland through independence is to continue at the lower end of United Kingdom growth and to fail to provide decent employment for all our people and a decent living for that one third of the Scottish population who currently live in poverty. Labour Members in particular should reflect on the fact that the working people of Scotland are those who pay the economic price of the union.
This debate is a platform for the SNP, building on the substantial case that has already been promulgated for independence in Europe. For the Unionist parties, it should serve as a warning. Some of us, a growing number, have a broader ambition for our people than shoehorning Scottish priorities into the requirements of the English electoral system. The economic and political union with England has served its purpose. It will come under increasing pressure. It offers nothing which can stand comparison with the challenge and opportunity of independence within the wider Community of Europe.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
notes the continued success of the present Government's policies in securing for Scotland record living standards and

the advantages of membership of the European Community within the United Kingdom, alongside a strong defence of the United Kingdom's essential interests, and the rejection of the Scottish National Party's policy of independence in Europe by the overwhelming majority of voters in Scotland at the European elections; and recognises the potential damage to the real interests of Scotland underlying the constitutional change advocated by opposition parties.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made it clear in the early substantive part of his speech that he accepts that the European elections were a severe rebuff for the central political strategy of the SNP over the last year—that is, the policy of independence in Europe.
During the election campaign, Mrs. Winnie Ewing was quoted as saying that Scotland's relationship with the European Community
is the central issue in this election campaign.
As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was frank enough to admit, about three quarters of the electorate refused to support the policy that his party had said was the fundamental and most important element in its whole political strategy.
In the motion, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends refer to the change of policy that the Labour party is contemplating in regard to unilateral disarmament. I say as an aside that it is a matter of considerable interest that the only parties in Scotland nowadays that appear to be prepared to advocate support for CND and unilateral disarmament are the SNP, the Communist party and the Greens. I am sure that that is an aspect that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan proclaims as loudly and clearly in Banff and Buchan as he does in Glasgow or in the House.
I have noted that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) are sometimes less euphoric in the north-east of Scotland about their belief in unilateralism than they would suggest when they proudly present themselves as the new Clydesiders when they are campaigning in Glasgow Central, but I pass that by.
It is not appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to attack the Labour party for a change in policy, and certainly not during a debate on the European Community. We might have had some reference from the hon. Gentleman to the fact that for many years he and his hon. Friends were not the ardent enthusiasts for the European Community that they now present themselves as being. He and his hon. Friends bitterly opposed "Scotland in the European Community" and they spent the whole period of the referendum on the European Community advocating, unsuccessfully, that the people of Scotland should vote no.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that at the time of the referendum, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), Margo MacDonald, who had just left the House, and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) campaigned all over Scotland saying that the European Community was undemocratic and that this country should have no part of it?

Mr. Rifkind: That is absolutely correct.

Mr. Jim Sillars: I have no objection to anyone reminding the House or any other forum that I campaigned against entry to the European Community. It was not, however, on the basis that it was undemocratic but on entirely different grounds—for example, that it would be injurious to the economic situation of the United Kingdom at that time, and therefore injurious to Scotland,


and it is easy to prove that. Is the Secretary of State aware that at that time people such as I said that if we went into the European Community, we would have to accept that a page of history had turned and that there would be no going back from that position?

Mr. Rifkind: Let us explore that, because the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting observation. I have been reading the document he published entitled "No Turning Back"—[Interruption.] More than one document has been published under that title, I hasten to assure my hon. Friends—at least, I hope that is the case, because otherwise this is even more sinister than one might have imagined.
In the alternative version of "No Turning Back", the hon. Member for Govan invites his readership to consider what has changed. We are entitled to ask why he and his hon. Friends, who were passionately hostile to the European Community in the past, have now seen the Community as the salvation of all of Scotland's interests. Is it a change brought about by conviction or by opportunism? He says in that document:
Bitter though the pill may he to swallow, it is quite irrelevant whether in 1972 and again in 1975 we were correct in opposing entry. We are 16 years down a very different road than any ever travelled before. There is no turning back.
Later he says:
Like it or not, we are in the European Community.
If that is the principle—that after 16 years it is now irrevocable and there is no turning back—on what basis does he say after 250 years that it is appropriate to try to disintegrate the United Kingdom?
If, as a matter of principle, the hon. Gentleman believes that Scotland's membership of the United Kingdom after 250 years is fundamentally against Scotland's interests and that it is right and proper, as a matter of principle, to campaign for the dissolution of the United Kingdom, why is he so willing to accept that after a mere 16 years, his position of principle has ceased to be relevant and that he must accept, however reluctantly, that Scotland should be in the Community?
Why will he not campaign for an independent Scotland outside the Community, as that is what he and his party were campaigning for at that time? The reality is that the conversion to Europe has nothing whatever to do with the European Community.

Mr. Ron Brown: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: No, I will not give way.
The reason for the conversion is also outlined in the same document by the hon. Member for Govan. Saying that they must deal with the charge of separatism, he comments:
It is the label which Unionist parties stuck upon the SNP.
He goes on:
The SNP was never able to overcome the problem. It was forced into ever more sophisticated rebuttals of the separatist charge, but in a sense the more it explained, the more convincing the label appeared.
The hon. Gentleman is correct in his view, and the attempt to present some new doctrine of independence in Europe is no more than a weak and flabby attempt to suggest that our membership of the Community has somehow changed the fundamental realities of the situation.
Logically, the Scottish National party must be against both the United Kingdom and the European Community. The basis of that party's policy during the first 40 years of

its existence was that for any alternative Government or Parliament to take decisions in the name of the Scottish people that were outwith Scotland's control was against Scottish interests. On that basis, the hon. Member for Govan and his hon. Friends seek to dismember the United Kingdom. They do not seek to reorganise the United Kingdom. They wish this Parliament at Westminster to have no power over Scottish interests and to be unable to legislate or determine policies that would apply to Scotland. Therefore I have to ask the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends why they believe that a United Kingdom Parliament must inevitably act against Scottish interests, whereas the Parliament in Strasbourg or the Commission in Brussels will be the new salvation for Scotland and its destiny.

Mr. Sillars: I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, of all people, given his minority position inside the British Cabinet, would understand the clear difference between this place and Strasbourg. This place exercises legislative control over Scotland. Strasbourg does not. [Interruption.] Strasbourg exercises no legislative control over—[Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) gets too worked up, let me tell him that I have not finished the sentence. There is nothing comparable to this place in the power that it exercises over Scotland. The hon. Gentleman knows that full well.

Mr. Rifkind: I advise the hon. Gentleman to re-read his own document in which, under a chapter headed
Increasing the powers and influences of the Parliament",
he calls for the European Parliament to be given fiscal powers to impose new taxation on the peoples of the Community. Will he explain that, in the light of his earlier comments? I shall gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sillars: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads it out, which he has not done, he will see that that is a suggestion for developing the powers of the European Parliament at the margins, on the basis that—

Mr. Michael Brown: On the margins?

Mr. Sillars: Yes, of course on the margins. The hon. Gentleman has not read the document, either. Why he interjects without having read it is beyond me. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sillars: It would be a means of increasing the powers of the European Parliament. Even if that were accepted, because it is not party policy—[Interruption.] The last people who should laugh are Labour Members. The Labour party frequently publishes the equivalent of Green Papers and pamphlets and says that the ideas contained in them are the personal points of view of this group, that group or that individual and that they do not bind the Labour party. If it is good enough for the Labour party, why is it not good enough for other parties? The fact remains that 99 per cent. of the power that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government wields in Scotland comes from this place and from no other part of western Europe.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman invites me to read out what is in the document. I cannot resist the invitation. On page 19 he says that the European Parliament
should have a tax raising ability used to supplement the budget allocation for policy initiatives. In its earliest days this could be a limited power.
Elsewhere in the document he says:
Of course an increase in the powers of the
European
Parliament means a decrease in the powers of the member states.
What the hon. Gentleman, in this brave new world, is suggesting is that Scotland should withdraw from the United Kingdom Parliament because that has the power to legislate for and to tax the people of Scotland and that the United Kingdom Parliament should be replaced by the European Parliament which would have a comparable power—a power which would grow over the years to come.
The hon. Gentleman believes that Scottish interests, because we are a minority in the House, have not been well represented over the years. We have over 10 per cent. of the membership of the House and our population is 5 million in a country of 55 million. He is suggesting that a Scottish Government and the Scottish people—representing 5 million people out of a European Community of over 320 million people where, on the basis of their population, their representation would amount to only 1·5 per cent. —would have more power in the European Parliament and that that would provide better protection for Scottish interests. It shows that the hon. Gentleman is living in a land of dreams and mystery that bears no relationship to the world in which the rest of us live.
Another factor that the House should be aware of and that the hon. Gentleman will have to live with—

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall give way in a moment.
The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends present a case that is based on the proposition that, somehow, Scotland is in a unique position as a national minority without full rights within the European Community. They know perfectly well, however, that there is a multitude of peoples with their own national identity throughout western Europe who do not have representation on the Council of Ministers, who do not have the power of veto that he is so anxious to obtain and who are not full, individual member states of the European Community.
The hon. Gentleman is proposing no less than the fragmentation of western Europe and the European Community. He believes that the French, the Germans and the Italians would be prepared to accept the fragmentation of the United Kingdom, with each state becoming a member of the European Community. He does not see the implications of such a proposition for each of the national minorities—for the Basques, the Catalans, the Corsicans and the Bavarians. National minorities exist in virtually every state of the European Community. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends can be seen once again to be living in a land of total unreality.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking for all those Governments, he should well understand that Scotland is in a very different

position. I should like to know from the Secretary of State for Scotland, in his great defence of the Scottish people, how many times he has attended the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware of the fact that our political philosophy is different from his. When I was a British Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office I attended the Council of Ministers on numerous occasions. If ever I believe that it is appropriate for the Secretary of State for Scotland to attend a Council of Ministers meeting I shall do so. We are Unionists because we believe that Scottish interests, and those of the rest of the United Kingdom, are best served by a strong United Kingdom Government who can bring about major achievements for the United Kingdom as a whole. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman either to believe or to accept that proposition, but that is the basis of our philosophical differences.

Mr. Welsh: Has there been no appropriate occasion to defend the Scottish fishing industry and Scottish industry in general? Were those occasions not appropriate? Is that why the Secretary of State never attended such a meeting?

Mr. Rifkind: Only last Thursday I met the Scottish Fishing Federation. At no stage did it make any of the carping comments that the hon. Gentleman likes to make —far from it. It welcomes the opportunity to have close and continuing co-operation with the Scottish Office. That point is well recognised.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the humbug and hypocrisy of "No Turning Back" is fully exposed when one looks at article I of the Act of Union, which says:
That the two kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the first day of May which shall be in the year one thousand seven hundred and seven, and for ever after, be united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain"?
The words are "for ever after." That, surely, is no turning back.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. It is not just Conservatives or Unionists who are quite successfully able to rubbish the arguments of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I think of the remarks that have been made by Mrs. Isobel Lindsay, a senior member of the hon. Gentleman's own party.

Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rifkind: Perhaps I may quote her remarks before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, when he will seek to distance himself from them. In September of last year, Mrs. Isobel Lindsay said:
In the new weighted voting system for the Commission which applies to many vital decisions Scotland would only have three votes out of 79. We would also of course be on the outmost periphery. Anyone who talks in glowing terms of Scotland's capacity to influence key economic decisions in the European Community is being more than a little unrealistic.
I now give way to someone who is a little unrealistic.

Mr. Salmond: The House missed the Secretary of State's answer to the fundamental point raised by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). Perhaps he will repeat it in a moment. In regard to the quotation, I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has studied majority voting procedures. He will realise that neither the large states nor the small states operating together can


have majority voting on the Council of Ministers. I am sure that the people of Scotland would rather have three votes on the Council of Europe working for us than 10 votes working against us.

Mr. Rifkind: The people of Scotland did not think that when three quarters of them voted against that policy in the European elections.

Mr. Ron Brown: rose—

Mr. Dick Douglas: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: As many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will excuse me if I do not give way.
Members of the Scottish National party put a lot of effort into the European policy that they thought would save them. Mr. Gordon Wilson, the chairman, said:
The SNP believes that the Scots will choose independence in Europe. But let the people decide.
The people have rejected that overwhelmingly.

Mr. Douglas: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: I shall not give way. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will wish to make his own remarks.
While hon. Gentlemen representing the SNP have been the subject of some ridicule because of their independence in Europe policy, in one way I am sympathetic to them. If there is anything more absurd than independence in Europe it is "Independence in the United Kingdom"—the slogan of the Labour party. That policy has not only caused some mystery, concern and curiosity among my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I understand that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has also found that extraordinary new policy a source of mystery. When he was asked his views on independence in the United Kingdom, he was quoted as saying,
It seems to be an irrelevant fantasy. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain it to me.
I hope that when he is taken into a corner and it is explained to him—

Mr. Ron Brown: rose—

Mr. Douglas: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has indicated that he is not giving way.

Mr. Rifkind: When one of my hon. Friends was trying to intervene earlier, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) kept barracking him and told him to seek an opportunity to speak in the debate. He should practise what he preaches.
In the gentlest possible way, I hope that, when Labour's interesting new policy has been explained in a way that is comprehensible to the right hon. Member for Gorton, it may also he explained to the House. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is usually a careful user of words. He does not normally indulge in tautological nonsense. He does not normally invite Conservative or Opposition Members to accept a policy which is a grammatical absurdity and a political nonsense. If this is to be an exception we are entitled to know why.

Mr. Donald Dewar: We are all agreed that Europe is important, our links with Europe matter and our developing role is also of vital importance. I suspect that that is not necessarily true in other parts of the Conservative party.
I cannot resist giving the Secretary of State a quotation which he will say I should not take too seriously, but it comes from a good source, Scottish Tory News, and it has a splendid photograph of Lord Goold looking masterful on the front page. On the back page it has an account of
The Scottish Conservative Party's Annual European Educational Trip, affectionately known as Bob Balfour's Bus Tours (and nick-named 'The Daughters of the Revolution Give Loathsome Johnny European One in the Teeth') … The Tour, the purpose of which is to educate Party members about the functions of the European Parliament, … is heavily subsidised by both the EC and the German Christian Democratic Union".
The tour included
Visits to SHAPE headquarters, the European Parliament buildings in Strasbourg, and numerous Bier-Kellers".
It was "very informative" and had
only … one minor setback, when a mad Frenchman crashed his car into the back of a bus. But slight casualties apart"—
that must be a reference to Mr. Alasdair Hutton and Mr. James Provan—
the trip was immensely successful, churning out many a born-again European amongst the Scottish Tories.
It then invites people to apply to 3 Chester street for the next trip later this summer.
The opening paragraph was:
They came. They saw. They couldn't muster up the strength to conquer, so they went away again.
That is a perfectly fair comment on the Scottish Conservative party.
There is some reason for the lack of enthusiasm in Conservative circles about 1992 and the integrated market. After 10 years of Conservative rule and after many years of an apparent economic miracle, so we are told, the United Kingdom has a visible trade deficit with the other 11 members of the EC, which in 1988 was £13,500 million —an unprecedented record of failure, representing more than two thirds of our visible trade deficit. I make that point at the outset, because when we talk about the structures, the theories and the constitutional arguments, we cannot ignore the simple fact that under the Conservative Government we have had a disastrous time in Europe and we are at the wrong end of every piece of European economic arithmetic.
The motion is no more than a worthless swirl of unconnected ideas and prejudices. It is tempting to ask people to examine not what the SNP says but what it does, but that assumes a certain consistency, at least in its aims, which is becoming harder to justify. In a quote which will certainly be familiar to hon. Members representing the SNP, I wish to refer to the views of Dr. Flora Isles, the group secretary of the SNP group on Tayside regional council. She said:
The Party has apparently no firm policy on anything, and frequently changes it to suit the circumstances at any one time: or sometimes it appears to have several different policies on one issue.
I could not identify or define the problem more succinctly if I spent some time on the drafting.
I cannot talk about it at any great length, but there are interesting parallels between the European situation and


Dr. Flora Isles's problems over the poll tax. I hope that SNP Members will answer the relevant question put by Dr. Isles when she said:
The Party had better decide now whether it wishes to continue to have councillors. It certainly cannot beg people to stand as candidates and then expect them to plunge themselves and their families into a state of financial disaster.
I understand from the chairman of the group, Councillor Frances Duncan, that the SNP policy supremo, Mr. MacAskill urged them that they
must not go down the surcharge road.
The gap between rhetoric and reality is one of the problems in Europe and in the SNP stance.
Apparently the great turning point on Europe was the much heralded SNP conference this year at Inverness. It was much heralded. Mr. Gordon Wilson, who one or two of us may remember is the leader of the SNP, said of his policy:
This is a bridge and what we are seeing is a narrowing, rushing stream now broadening out.
He continued:
Rather than grasp a nettle, the party has grasped a thistle.
That must have been rather an uncomfortable experience, but I am not sure whether it explains with any great clarity why the SNP has changed its position.
It is interesting that it was reported that at the SNP conference
Many doubters were won over by an amendment that any Scottish government would put the terms of entry to the EC to the Scottish people in a referendum.
That has been acknowledged today by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), but it is a little odd that a party which is banking everything on the total irresponsibility of suggesting that there is solution for the country except as an independent nation in Europe has to buy support at its own party conference by promising a referendum on a self-evident truth. That suggests a certain dash of expediency which is difficult to justify.
We then have the saga with which we are all familiar of the seats where the SNP MEP—that used to be a plural concept—will sit. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), in a BBC programme on 2 June was pressed by me, among others. He made it clear that Mrs. Winifred Ewing had been wrong for all these years and would be dropped overboard without a backward glance. She would have to decamp and she would be told so. He also made it clear that he would not sit with the Socialists. He said that he would not sit with the British Labour group and that he would not sit with the French Socialists because they were soft on terrorism and were not worthy of his support or friendship.
He then said:
Our executive are actually going to discuss this. [Laughter.] Oh yes, oh yes. We are going to review our position.
The implication was that it would be reviewed so that when people put crosses on ballot papers, they would know exactly what was happening. Matters have not worked out that way. We still do not know about the SNP's position, although we may hear a little more about it in the rest of the debate. We cannot claim to know where the SNP stands on Europe if we cannot find out even where its members are going to sit in the European Parliament.
"Scotland independent in Europe" is not a simple slogan but an exercise in expediency. I agree with the Secretary of State to the extent that I believe that separatism has now been recognised as a desperate problem for a separatist party. That was frankly set out in August 1988 in the "No Turning Back" pamphlet written by the hon. Member for Govan. I do not want to bother the House with further quotations so I will say merely that it was in an extended passage entitled:
A sharp reminder about separatism.
It was clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that he felt that the SNP would not be able to remove people's doubts about separatism, about the self-interest it represents and about the destruction and dislocation that would come with it unless the SNP could find some way to persuade people that the party was an animal that had changed to a wholly different position.
What made the idea of Scotland being independent in Europe attractive was not the merits of the argument, but the fact that it could be camouflage and used for electoral advantage and to get over what the hon. Member for Govan clearly recognised were the major intellectual and political disadvantages of being seen as a separatist party. That is not the right basis on which a major shift in policy should be taken.
I do not know what the practical problems or possibilities of Scotland negotiating its entry would be if the people of Scotland decided that they wished to follow the advice of the SNP and, frankly, I shall not spend a great deal of time on the matter. I am glad that today we have not had the usual obscure arguments about the Greenland precedent and that we have not had to watch the hon. Member for Govan and his hon. Friends dancing on the head of a pin—a rather inelegant exercise. We heard about an eminent authority—indeed, the greatest living authority in the world. It came as a considerable relief to Labour Members that that person turned out not to be the hon. Member for Govan. There is normally an arrogant certainty about his views which suggests that he has at least convinced his friends and colleagues that he falls into that category.
Whether Scotland gets into the EC or not, it is obviously important that Scotland remains within the market which is the United Kingdom, whether that market is part of the European Community or not. Even the substantial number of SNP supporters who wish to be independent, but outside the EC, would agree that we have to have those arrangements. The reason is the dislocation and disruption to which I have referred. This week, there has been a great deal of concern about Wang and about the branch factory phenonemon. I believe that there would be a genuine problem even within the EC if we were an independent country which had deliberately distanced itself economically and politically from the rest of the United Kingdom, which could be a positive action of dissociation.
Presumably there would be a danger, for example, that any English company with factories in Scotland might see those factories as the first likely victims in the case of recession. We must also consider the dismemberment of social services and public utilities. What would happen to families in different parts of the United Kingdom who would suddenly be faced with a choice between competing nationalities? Although the pace of European integration may proceed, that would be the position for a long time.
What trust can we put in a budget that depends on optimistic assumptions about oil revenues? If oil revenues are a key factor, we are entitled to ask what would happen if they went. The budget does not add up and assumes cuts in housing, local government and education. If one is launching an independent, separate state, one does not do so on special factors that will have only a limited life. One does not do so on a prospectus of 30 or 40 years.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan referred to Professor Malcolm Slesser, who is a well-known member of the Scottish Nationalists.

Mr. Sillars: He is a nice fellow.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member for Govan describes Professor Slesser, rather patronisingly, as a nice fellow. I will repeat what Professor Slesser said:
In fact, a financial forecast of what Scotland would be like as an independent country is about as meaningless as one of Chancellor Lawson's pieces of star-gazing.
That is a pretty harsh judgment on the exercise in which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has been engaged for the past 12 months, but it is perhaps a good dose of reality when looking at that piece of make-believe.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman and I have debated this subject before, not least on a "Left, Right and Centre" programme two months ago. The hon. Gentleman stumped off after the programme saying that it would never happen again. I do not know what would never happen again. I do not know whether he meant he would never discuss again the economics of an independent Scotland or would not appear on "Left, Right and Centre" to do so. On that programme, the hon. Gentleman failed wholly to discredit the view that there would be substantial economic opportunities for an independent Scotland. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will move on to tell us what areas of economic policy his new concept of independence within the United Kingdom would provide. Would it, for example, provide any control over monetary policy in Scotland?

Mr. Dewar: That was not exactly a ringing defence of the hon. Gentleman's budget and its problems. It was more a case of someone in a tight corner trying to counter-attack. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman—and I hope that he is not disappointed by this—is that I cannot remember the context of that conversation, but I must also say that I do not normally remember conversations with him.
It is intellectually bizarre to find a group of politicians who argue for Socialism in one country, as some members of the SNP have done honourably for some time, and who now embrace the Single European Act with an enthusiasm that makes Lord Cockfield look like a foot-dragger. One cannot rely on Scotland as a nation state with a fast-fading veto for protection in the European Community. One certainly cannot rely on Scotland being able to hold up the pace of change by using a veto in terms of the Luxembourg compromise. If that is the basis on which the SNP is arguing its case, it is out of touch with the times, and it is no more than a bad joke.
In its policy document in June 1989, the SNP produced what it described as the way in which one measures a nation's independence. It said that it is measured
by whether it controls its own economy through legislation and a range of economic powers.

It said that the chief of the essential tests of independence were:
monetary and fiscal policy; exchange rate policy; overall public expenditure; trade policy".
I do not agree because I think that that is too simplistic an approach, but if that is the test, it seems that we are in the business of what the report itself in the heading to that chapter called "bogus independence" in the light of what is happening in Madrid and in the European Community at present. It is also not sensible in terms of the tests that the SNP itself has set, let alone by the tests that others may have set.
I am genuinely surprised—and I say this with respect —to hear the hon. Member for Govan apparently arguing that of course he wants independence in Europe, as long as the European Parliament does not have any power, control or legislative authority over Scotland or any other part of the member state. I will, of course, read the Hansard report of his comments. That view is wholly incompatible with his own pamphlet a few months ago. He dismissed the pamphlet as a personal point of view, so if his comments today are the official policy of the SNP, which I presume they are, they are an extraordinary mockery of many of the points that the SNP has been arguing in recent debates and of its whole European stance.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No, because I must hurry on.

Mr. Hind: I want to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Dewar: I do not want my question answered from the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Hind: What about an independent Scotland in the United Kingdom? Tell us what that idea is all about.

Mr. Dewar: I will not give way. I want to bother the House with one more important quotation, in which the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) may be interested. It is from an authority that the Secretary of State also used, which is a respectable authority in nationalist terms. Mrs. Isobel Lindsay spoke at the Inverness conference of the SNP against the "Scotland independent in Europe" motion. She said that the resolution was dishonest because it implied that the single European market would have devastating effects under the status quo, but not for an independent Scotland. The conference report states:
'This is a nonsense,' she insisted".
That is the problem that the SNP faces. Isobel Lindsay has been my unwilling ally in this debate, but nevertheless she is an honest witness and records the matter fairly.

Mr. Sillars: Is the hon. Gentleman going to deal with another area of enormous interest to Isobel Lindsay, who has been as consistent on this issue as on the European issue, and consider that part of our motion dealing with the contradiction of the Labour party in Scotland saying "No Trident" when the hon. Gentleman is imposing Trident on Scotland because his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the national executive have said that Trident will come to Scotland?

Mr. Dewar: I am not going to discuss defence policy today—[Interruption.]—because it is not the main thrust


of this argument. However, I shall be delighted to discuss it on other occasions and I do not doubt that I shall have the opportunity.
Experience in Europe proves that one must be in the big league if one is to survive effectively. If I went around the 11 European Community countries—apart from Denmark—and asked, "Who is representing Denmark in Madrid?", I expect that the answer would be many blank expressions. Perhaps that is a cheap way of making the point, but it is an effective way. We must recognise that small countries do not have much clout or leverage.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was being dishonest when he suggested that the recent MORI poll showed 35 per cent. support for the SNP's position, because on the issue of independence in Europe there was just 22 per cent. support—less than the Conservative party polled at the last general election. I should have thought that nothing could be more telling about the SNP's position. The Scottish National party will not win this argument because argument and information are the enemies of its case. It is asking the Scots to grasp at the appearance and trappings of power, but to surrender the reality of influence.

Mr. Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No, I shall not give way because I am just coming to an end.

Mr. Hind: rose—

Mr. Dewar: No, I have said that I shall not give way.

Mr. Hind: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Dewar.

Mr. Dewar: Opposition Members do not join the Government in defending the status quo. A great deal is happening in Europe at the moment to which we in Scotland could relate effectively. Alliances are being built and contacts made. New power structures are beginning to emerge within the EEC. If one talks to the West Germans and to the men who are in the Länder, to the Basques and to the Catalans, one realises that their presence is now being felt and that they are now beginning to build their own methods of working together and in partnership with national Governments to influence events. If we in Scotland are to do that, our system must be reformed and we must be given the opportunity.
As is well known, the next Labour Government will establish a Scottish Parliament, which I hope will take advantage of those opportunities. The Scottish National party belittles that and calls it "the Bavarian solution". But having looked at the Bavarian economy and experience, I can only say that I should not mind seeing it repeated in Scotland in terms of employment and economic opportunity. The Scottish National party belittles that, but they would, wouldn't they? We should talk to those who are setting the pace in Europe. We should recognise the markedly greater powers—greater than the Länder and greater than those of the regions of Spain—that a Scottish Parliament would have within the framework of the United Kingdom.
When I make such points, I am accused of trying to have the best of both worlds, but why should we not have the best, if it is available? There is nothing wrong with that.

Scotland should have the strength of being in full partnership with the United Kingdom. It should have the strength of proper independence within the framework of the United Kingdom. It should have the strength of being able to work with the rest of the United Kingdom within Europe, but it should also have the flexibility and the potential of a developing role, directly affecting European policy.
Our reforms and policies would give Scotland all that. They are right on the merits of the argument. I believe that they have the support of most Scots. We are determined to deliver and we shall do so at an early date.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a predictable speech, except in one regard. We shall have to check in Hansard and read precisely what he said, but I understood him to say that his party supported the Irish nation's right of self-determination. If he said that, I must advise him that that is precisely the policy of Sinn Fein and that it is something that we shall have to consider further.
I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—

Mr. Ron Brown: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman because I must get on. Time is limited.
At the end of his speech the hon. Member for Garscadden referred briefly to the concept of independence in the United Kingdom, but he did not explain it. It was a ringing slogan, but his speech did not address its inherent contradictions in any way. He propounded the need for some kind of what he referred to as a "Parliament", although his amendment refers to a "Parliament or Assembly". It is clear that his party cannot decide even on the name of that great body.
During the Glasgow, Central by-election a grand meeting of all the candidates was called by the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly. It was attended by all the parties, except for the Scottish National party, which presumably was, not unnaturally, reluctant to subject its policy to sustained and public scrutiny. Then, as now, the proponents yet again disagreed on all the fundamentals.

Mr. Hind: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I shall give way later to my hon. Friend.
All those attending disagreed on the powers, on the taxation system and on the voting system for such a body. At the end of the proceedings, there was the usual Laurel and Hardy act, featuring two of the leading, self-appointed, non-elected great men of the constitutional convention movement, Canon Kenyon Wright and Mr. Bob McCreadie, the candidate of the Scottish Social and Liberal Democratic party, who subsequently became one of the most spectacularly non-elected candidates of recent British political history. When there was a vote—

Mr. Thomas Graham: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later, after I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind).
At the end of the proceedings the vote was in favour of the position of the Scottish National party—although the


party was not there. At that point, Mr. McCreadie stormed off the platform, abusing Canon Kenyon Wright, the chairman of the meeting. Indeed, Mr. McCreadie almost went as far as demanding that the canon be fired —[Laughter.] Yes, we are the party of the awfully good bad puns. That is yet another example of the more that one goes to the root of the slogans that we hear from the Labour party and from those who advocate an assembly, a parliament or whatever it should be called, the more the disagreements come through—

Mr. Graham: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I have said that I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West.

Mr. Hind: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who will no doubt be aware that Conservative Members who believe in the United Kingdom and who feel that Scotland has an important part to play in it might consider the Act of Union in terms of a Scottish Parliament and question why an hon. Member such as myself, representing an English constituency, should have over 85,000 constituents, when many constituencies in Scotland are much smaller. I refer especially to the Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale constituency, which has just over 38,500 constituents. Will the Labour party's policy include trading some of the seats in this Parliament for some in the Scottish Parliament so that the United Kingdom as a whole could be more equally represented in this House?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I hope that the Labour party will answer that question. Of course, Opposition Members will not endeavour to answer the more fundamental questions. I am not referring simply to those about numbers, but also the West Lothian question, which is wholly unanswerable.
Both my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Garscadden gave the House some interesting quotations—

Mr. Graham: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must complete my speech.

Mr. Graham: The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the Constitutional Convention. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the people of Scotland would prefer to see the Scottish National party and the Conservative party and their representatives playing a meaningful role in the Constitutional Convention. However, it is well known throughout Scotland that Scottish National party councillors have no hesitation in entering into deals and agreements with Conservative members to run the council. As the hon. Gentleman knows, on Renfrew district council the Scottish National party formed a coalition with the Conservative party. The same happened in Glasgow district council. In nearly every authority in which the Scottish National party has councillors, those councillors have no hesitation in doing deals with the Conservatives so that they can run the council and implement near-Conservative proposals. I find it strange for a Conservative Member not to agree at least to work in the Constitutional Convention along with SNPs, Liberals and everyone else. We would welcome it.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) has raised the interesting point

of the policy of the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Garscadden has quoted rightly and properly from Dr. Flora Isles on the great Tayside controversy. No doubt, when winding up, the Scottish National party representative will wish to refute the allegation that it has put forward different policies in different parts of the country. All four hon. Members representing the SNP in the House will wish to proclaim from the rooftops how much they agree with Mr. Alex Neill, its candidate in the by-election, that it is the party of the Red Clydesiders, and that the mantle of Clydeside Socialist, Left-wing philosophy correctly belongs to the Scottish National party. Let that ring out around the hedgerows of Perthshire, Angus and Banff and Buchan.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that probably the SNP did so badly in Angus and Perthshire in the recent elections because the people did not believe that it was the inheritor of Red Clydesiders?

Mr. Stewart: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The advantage of the Conservative party, or for that matter the Labour party, is that we can pursue our policies and we do not have to remember which constituency we are in at the time. We have a consistent philosophy.

Mr. Ron Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart: I shall give way for the last time to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brown: It is interesting to hear the chit-chat between the nationalists and the Conservatives, bearing, in mind that it is almost like when auld freens fa' oot—as they say in Scotland. We should remember that in 1979 the nationalists were supporting the Tories. [Interruption.] Perhaps they have learnt something, but they have not learnt enough about Europe. Europe is much larger than the area of the EEC. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) wants independence in Europe, he will not get it in Strasbourg, but he will get it within that part of the world that can respond to Socialist policies.
I can say also to the Labour party, which is important to me, that if we back-track on the basic policies in Scotland, particularly on the poll tax, and kid people on—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that an intervention has to be a question and a pertinent comment, not a speech.

Mr. Stewart: The question of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) would be better directed to the representatives of the Scottish National party than to me. In the Glasgow, Central by-election, day after day the Scottish National party reassured the people that it was a Socialist party and the party that had inherited the mantle of the Red Clydesiders. I hope that that makes the hon. Gentleman a little happier.
The Scottish National party has been, first, split on the issue of Europe and, secondly, has taken its current position for electoral expediency. There have been quotations from Isobel Lindsay. I shall quote another distinguished SNP figure, a former senior vice-chairman of the SNP, who said on 17 September 1988 in The Scotsman:
1992 is about the free market economy. To those of you who think of yourselves as Socialists, have you given any thought to what you are being asked to give up?


The truth is that it has adopted its slogan of independence in Europe purely because, as the hon. Member for Govan said in one of his books or pamphlets,
the charge of separation disappears.

Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart: No, because so many other hon. Members wish to speak.
It has been put forward solely for electoral expediency. It raises, as a policy, two key questions: is it deliverable, and is it desirable? The argument put forward by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that it is deliverable rests on two assertions. The first assertion is correct. He is correct in saying that, if the Scottish National party gained a majority of Scottish seats, in practice it would have the right to withdraw and to negotiate to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom. Of course, Parliament can repeal the Act of Union at any time, but, in practice, if that happened, Parliament would say that the people of Scotland had elected a majority of representatives of the party whose objective, purpose and the reason for its very existence was to break up the Union. I believe that that is precisely what would happen.
I do not believe that the second assertion on deliverability is correct. It is no good quoting lawyers, however expert. The question is what the Council of Ministers would do. What would happen is that there would be the continuing member—the successor state to the United Kingdom—and Scotland would have an application on the table. It has been pointed out that there is a freeze on applications until 1993. I shall quote from the 1989 report of an independent Scottish institute, the Fraser of Allander Institute, which is not normally especially favourable to the Conservative cause. It said:
the negotiations will take several years and Scotland would be lucky to join the European Community this century.
That is the reality.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart: No. I have already said that I will not give way again.
The second question is: is it desirable? My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has spelt out the case against that very clearly this afternoon. My position has always been clear. Given the choice between the devil of a unilateral Scottish Assembly and the deep blue sea of an independent Scotland, I would give unequivocal support to an independent Scotland. A unilateral Assembly would lead to decades of constitutional chaos and then the break-up of the United Kingdom.
Scotland faces in practice a three-way choice at the next election. The choice is between the Conservative and Unionist party, which is for private enterprise and a stable economy; the Labour party, putting forward whatever brand of yuppie Socialism is then in current vogue and a constitutional hotch-potch which would lead to chaos; and the Scottish National party. If people believe in a Socialist Scotland outside the United Kingdom—I repeat, with an uncertain relationship with the European Community—of course they should vote for it, but not otherwise.

Mr. Ron Brown: John Maclean.

Mr. Stewart: John Maclean will not be an elector at the next general election. It will be no good people saying afterwards, "We did not mean it; it was just a wee protest about the Health Service," or complaining because the road was up outside their house. If people vote for the Scottish National party and for this slogan in sufficient numbers, the Act of Union will be broken. Let no one be unclear about that. I hope and believe that it will not happen. We should steadily and confidently counter the propaganda against the Union by those who argue that the Union does not work to the benefit of Scotland.
At the beginning of this Parliament the Labour party adopted the language and gestures of nationalism. I believe that it has initiated a partial retreat from that stance as it has begun to realise the dangers of that policy. Let us hope that that retreat into common sense continues.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I am concerned at the way in which the SNP can present its case to the electorate one year and execute a complete U-turn the following year.
My intervention in the Secretary of State's speech was important as it is worth reminding the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) that he visited the Rolls-Royce factory with Margo MacDonald and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) was right to say that we are not just talking about Europe, but the European Economic Community. The hon. Member for Govan once argued that the EEC is undemocratic and that Members of the European Parliament do not have any power and that that power rests with the Commissioners and the Council of Ministers. Why is it then that the only time we heard about independence within Europe from that hon. Gentleman was during the campaign in Glasgow, Govan?

Mr. Sillars: rose—

Mr. Martin: I shall not give way, as the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to reply later.
Why did the SNP not use the slogan "Independence within the European Community" rather than "Independence within Europe" given that the hon. Member for Govan argued that we were not talking about Europe, but the Community? The SNP has been dishonest. There are aspects of the EEC that I do not like, but I firmly believe that if we are part of Europe, Scotland is stronger as part of the United Kingdom than as a separate state.
The SNP is also dishonest because its policy is not just about independence, but is anti-English. Everything it does and everything it stands for is directed by a hatred of the English. Why should we seek to break away from a country with which we have a common border and which is part of a small island? The SNP wants to fragment the United Kingdom, but Scotland would not have a chance as a single entity within the EEC. It would be out-voted by the more powerful nations and it would mean that England and Wales would become weaker.
The SNP reminds me of the party with which it claims to have links, the party of Quebec in Canada. The provinces of Canda are autonomous, but the party of Quebec wants to separate that province from Canada. It believes that such separation would make the province stronger, but the real motive for that separation is its


hatred for the people it describes as the "Anglophones". The party of Quebec is more interested in fining a tobacconist because he refused to put a French sign up on his door than in anything else.

Mr. Salmond: What has that got to do with us?

Mr. Martin: There is plenty on the record to prove that the SNP and members of the party of Quebec have met and regard themselves as fraternal bodies. If the SNP gets any power in Scotland the racial elements displayed by the party of Quebec will become apparent in Scotland.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: rose—

Mr. Martin: I will not give way as the hon. Gentleman will have his own opportunity later.
We have already seen what happened when the SNP got some power in the city of Glasgow. In Glasgow we have a lot for which to thank the Salvation Army as it looks after the destitute, young children and many other needy people. The first thing that the SNP did when it won seats on the Glasgow district council—the proposal came from Mr. Stewart Ewing, the husband of the European Member of Parliament representing the Highlands—was to refuse a modest grant to the Salvation Army. At that time the SNP had wards in Easterhouse, Provan and the Drumchapel areas and it said that it would not vote for any proposals that would improve the lot of those who voted Labour. There is a piece of land still lying in my ward on which houses could have been built had it not been for the Nats aligning themselves with the Tories and refusing to build council houses in the Eastfield district of Springburn.
There is also a Fascist element within the SNP which the leadership will do absolutely nothing about. Consider the great victory won by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and let us remember what the SNP did. I have witnesses to prove that in Royston hill SNP workers encouraged young children to throw stones at Labour cars.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: rose—

Mr. Martin: I will not give way, as I want this to go on the record to prove what type of people the SNP are.

Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it is in order for the hon. Gentleman to place this nonsense on record, is it also in order to ask him whether he complained to the police about it? That was the proper course of action if such an incident took place.

Mr. Martin: I have already said that I have witnesses to the events that took place and I am willing to obtain statements from them.
There is a convent in Royston hill that looks after elderly people. It asked for Labour workers to come up to take elderly people who had a postal vote to the polling station. Those people were—in their 80s—we have them in every constituency—and they value their votes. As they were being taken into the polling station, SNP workers insulted them by saying that the Labour party had robbed them from the grave to get them to vote. That was the type of insult that they hurled at people who wanted to exercise their democratic rights.

Mr. John Maxton: My hon. Friend, unlike myself, was not present at the count at Glasgow, Central. First, my hon. Friend the new Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) had to be brought in

at a side door because the police could not guarantee his safety from the SNP mob outside. Some of us had to leave that count and we suffered racist abuse from that mob and were spat upon by people from the SNP.

Mr. Martin: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned that, because such things did not happen only at the Glasgow, Central by-election. Back in Margo MacDonald's time in Govan, when I was a young councillor, the agent for the Labour party had to he given police protection. Margo MacDonald came into the count bedecked with four big Highlanders in full Highland regalia as if they were her praetorian guard. Such actions demonstrate the type of people with which we are dealing, but the SNP leadership will do nothing about them.
If, God forbid, a majority of SNP Members are elected, the type of element seen at Glasgow, Central is bound to be elected. Such elections will be damaging to democracy in Scotland as well as damaging to the people of Glasgow and—

Mr. Sillars: Corrupt Labour.

Mr. Martin: It was a form of corruption for the hon. Member for Govan to hold an anti-poll tax meeting on the borders of my constituency and that of the late Bob McTaggart when he told the people not to pay their poll tax when he knew full well that the Angus local authority, controlled by the SNP, was recruiting labour to implement that poll tax. It is corrupt and dishonest to attack Strathclyde regional council for its redundancies because it gave one of the best redundancy agreements I have seen in a long time—whereas, in Tayside, 900 cleaners lost their jobs.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Would my hon. Friend agree that, in any election campaign, the dishonesty of a leaflet is compounded when the leaflet's publisher does not have the guts to put on it the name of its party or its symbol, and that party is identifiable only in the tiniest print?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must caution the hon. Gentleman that we are straying a long way from the motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Martin: I saw that leaflet. The last piece of dishonesty that I want to mention—

Mr. Graham: rose—

Mr. Martin: I shall not give way.
It is dishonest to tell the people of Scotland that the SNP wants to fight to have more power in Europe when the SNP Euro-candidate in Glasgow could not get in quickly enough to fight to get into Westminster after the death of the previous Member. That shows how dishonest the SNP is.
I am glad to be able to put on record the type of element which the hon. Member for Govan joined when he deserted the Labour party. I am glad that he deserted the Labour party because we do not want his kind in the party. I hope that, at the very least, the media will take note of the type of people running around the streets of Scotland saying, "Vote SNP".

Mr. Bill Walker: It is always a pleasure to follow the honest approach of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). Too often in these debates we listen to intellectual exchanges, but do not hear nearly enough said from the heart, and the Scottish people understand the feelings of the heart. I am sure that the hon. Member for Springburn is always respected by his electorate because he speaks from the heart.
I understood why the hon. Member for Springburn felt as he did about the SNP's attitude and the unsavoury elements which, sadly, exist within that party. There is no doubt that it has practised intimidation and lies, not only in his constituency, but in mine. It was asked whether such matters had been reported to the police; everything of which I speak has been reported to the police and has been dealt with.
At the last general election there was an SNP member at one of the polling stations in my constituency with massive badges and many credentials to show that he was entitled to be there—and with a shotgun. If ever there was evidence of intimidation, surely that was it. It was unfortunate for him that one of the first people to arrive at the polling station was an off-duty policeman who dealt summarily with the intimidator. Such practices are fairly common.
Anyone who has studied the SNP's position on independence in relation to anything must recognise that it is basically a separatist party which wants to break up the United Kingdom. It is asking the people of Scotland to give up all the benefits of belonging to Great Britain. We could spend a long time discussing the economic benefits, whether real, imagined or invented. However, I do not wish to spend too much time doing so. Like the hon. Member for Springburn, I wish to deal with other aspects of what it means to be part of the United Kingdom.
Since 1707, Scotland has retained its identity, history and culture, yet it has always played a massive part in the creation of British history, identity and culture. That is what the SNP wishes to rupture and destroy. Conservative and Labour Members and the Democrats, or whatever identity they have these days, have made it clear that we are parties of the Union. We may have different views about how we see the Union progressing, but we do not differ on the fact that we wish to retain the Union and this unitary Parliament.
In an intervention I drew attention to the wording of the Act of Union. People in Scotland constantly remind me about this Act, but I usually find that they have never read it. I do not think that any Act passed by this House is cast in stone because anyone who believes, as I do, in our democracy recognises that its cornerstone is that no Parliament is bound by decisions made by a previous one. This Parliament is paramount and, in conjunction with the other place, we can change the law as it affects the United Kingdom. Nothing is permanent.
However, in his intervention, comments and writing the hon. Member for Govan has made it quite clear that entry into the European Community is cast in stone, and there is no turning back. If that is his view of our relationship with Europe, surely that cannot also be the view of a man who wants to be a separatist and destroy the Act which created the Union.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Secession from Britain inevitably means secession from Europe which would give the Scottish Nationalists the Scotland which they had before 1907—in Europe, but outside the market of the United Kingdom and, consequently, outside the market of Europe. Scotland was the poorest area because it was isolated at its own choice.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his helpful intervention, which neatly encapsulated the fundamental flaws in the arguments put forward by the separatist Nationalists.
We all know that the SNP's Govan by-election slogan, which should have read, "Separation in Europe" because, effectively, that is what it was asking for, was a policy put forward on the basis that the SNP has inherited Red Clydeside. Anyone who has made any attempt to win elections north of Perth will know that the Labour party has difficulty in doing so. In the mountain areas of the Highlands its members are lucky to save their deposits. Therefore, it would seem odd to suggest that the Red Clydeside flag should be flown by the nationalists north of Perth.

Mr. Graham: rose—

Mr. Walker: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has already made about three speeches.
The SNP row that we see in Angus and Tayside at the moment has its origins in the fact that the SNP in the north of Scotland, certainly in my constituency and Tayside, has always tried to present itself as the party of the middle or middle Right, certainly of the Right. It finds it difficult to accept that it is now the party of the Red Clydeside inheritance.

Mr. Graham: rose—

Mr. Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to complete what I am saying?
That is why Dr. Flora Isles and other SNP members including one of my constituents, Councillor Francis Duncan, are so concerned. It has been said that, in a letter, Dr. Flora Isles made it clear that she did not understand the SNP's policies because it did not have any and seemed to have different policies for different places at different times. That has been put on the record by one of the leading SNP activists in Tayside.
Anyone who has studied the activities of SNP district councils will realise that the SNP believes that it can be selective about its policies in Europe or anywhere else. Its Members of Parliament in Europe can say there whether they agree with the legislation emerging from the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. They will pick the policies that they like, just as they try to do here. Members of the SNP tell people in Scotland and elsewhere to reject the community charge, but in office it is a different story. The administration in Angus is busy collecting the charge and, more importantly, it is taking on more staff to ensure that it gets the money. That is the source of the confusion. The SNP is the party of all the people all the time with any policy, so long as it gives SNP members the chance to appear to be winning.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) in his place; he put a stop to this nonsense. I do not agree with Labour party policy, but at least Labour Members told the people of Scotland what


their policy was—in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Wick, Thurso and the Western Isles. Their policy is the same everywhere. The nationalists want to be all things to all people.
I am not depressed by the recent European election results, which we have carefully analysed in my constituency. They show that I would be returned with a comfortable majority. [Interruption.] I make no apology for saying that the first thing I do after every election is to analyse how the results will affect me. If other hon. Members were honest, they would admit to doing the same. Analysis is possible because the people who vote give us little green cards—hon. Members know about the different ways of doing this. Tayside, North had the highest turnout in the north-east and, as we know, in north Tayside the higher the poll, the better it is for the sitting Member. In parts of my constituency the turnout was higher than 50 per cent., and it was largely a Tory turnout. That is why I speak so happily this evening.
The election result came about largely because of the confusion, chaos, misrepresentation and downright lies and intimidation developed by the SNP in recent years. Now it is all coming home to roost. SNP Members are a sorry lot; they will have to live with what they have done and said and with what their supporters have done and said. I invite the Red Clydesiders to come to my constituency to speak every week, because they will push up my majority—

Mr. Graham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Red Clydesiders would probably turn in their graves at the thought that this lot—the SNP—are claiming to be the new breed of Red Clydesiders? Not long ago the SNP tore up the telegram from the Red Clydeside ship workers. Red Clydesiders must be appalled—their ancestors got results by voting Labour.

Mr. Walker: That needs no response from me.
I have mentioned history, identity and culture. Many people in Scotland who have connections with the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force, the Army and the Royal Marines do not want their regiments, squadrons and ships disbanded and thrown away. How marketable in Perth and Perthshire would be the suggestion that we disband the Black Watch? What utter nonsense! Our British history, identity and culture are much more important than all the nonsense and fraudulent economic packages of which we have heard from the SNP.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I congratulate the Scottish National party on bringing this motion to the House, and on having consulted higher authority and taken advice that it should do so, so that we can all know what SNP Members mean by an independent Scotland in Europe. I want to concentrate on the constitutional aspects, not on personal matters. I hate nothing more than to hear Scots shouting at other Scots.
The SNP's argument for an independent Scotland in Europe is interesting, but fundamentally different from how my party sees Scotland's role in Europe. We view the Community as a group of interdependent states sharing a common political and economic structure, but largely composed of families of interdependent nations and regions.
There is no independence in the Community. On the contrary, when a state joins, it gives up some of its

sovereignty to the institutions of the Community—to an extent, it "trades in" its independence, or part of it, for membership. The SNP plans to prise Scotland free from England, yet have it cede its newly won sovereignty to a body that would give England a continuing say in Scottish affairs. I hope that the SNP realises that whatever the merits of its case it could not be implemented without the majority consent of the Scottish people. I know that SNP Members have said that they would hold a referendum, but I am not yet clear about how they will become independent from the United Kingdom and then seek independence in Europe.
The SNP must remember what people in Scotland believe. The majority want to control their own affairs through a Scottish Parliament, but they do not want to sever their links and ties with the United Kingdom.
I have always been interested in the Labour party's slogan about an independent Scotland in the United Kingdom, but I am not sure whether it has yet explained what that means. We have yet to see full commitment by the Labour party to strong home rule. Historically, the Labour party has been lukewarm, if not actively hostile, to the idea of giving people greater constitutional control over their own affairs, particularly in Scotland.
I welcome the fact that the Opposition are now at last, after difficulties of their own, acknowledging the merits of the Liberal party's radical home rule policy, and that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has been, if not on the road to Damascus, at least on the road to Bavaria. No doubt all will be revealed during the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention. If the Opposition can be converted to the overwhelming case for a fair electoral system, the Scottish people can be assured that their Parliament will not become a vehicle for imposing Socialism on Scotland. Those outwith the central belt would have no confidence in a system that produced simply Strathclyde writ large.

Mr. Wilson: Strathclyde has done okay by Argyll.

Mrs. Michie: I could dispute that, but I will not.
My party is the only true home rule party. Its policy is for a federal United Kingdom, with Scotland leading the way with the transfer of power from this place to a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. Unlike unionism or separatism, federalism is not a dogma. There is no federal model or blueprint that must be applied regardless of circumstances. The aim is to find the right balance between the states of the federation and between them and the centre.
With the restoration of the Scottish state within a federal United Kingdom the Scottish people would recover control of all their own affairs except those that they chose to leave to a federal Government, such as foreign affairs and defence. The division of function would be entrenched. Any disputes would be referred to a constitutional court for decision. There would be single-tier, all-purpose local authorities in order to avoid top-heavy costly Government structures.
Members of those authorities and of a Scottish Parliament would be elected by a modern electoral system of proportional representation that would reflect the diversity of views within Scotland. The first-past-the-post system is a dinosaur of a prehistoric constitutional era. We can see it here. The Government govern the United Kingdom with only 42 per cent. of the vote, yet they have


a majority of 100-plus seats. In Scotland the Labour party has only 42 per cent. of the vote, yet it has 70 per cent. of the seats.
On home rule and Europe, it would be essential for a Scottish Government to have direct links with the European Community. At the level of the Council of Ministers that would mean that, on all matters affecting Scotland, a Scottish Minister would accompany the United Kingdom Minister and would be entitled to speak on Scotland's behalf. On matters that affected Scotland alone, the Scottish Minister would take the lead in negotiations and would be entitled to cast the United Kingdom vote.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: With growing monetary union, surely domestic Parliaments will have no control over the deliberations of the Council of Ministers. Over the next few years that must inevitably mean that more power will accrue to the European Parliament and this place will lose power.

Mrs. Michie: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this place will lose power. We have seen how horrified hon. Conservative Members are about that possibility. I was referring to a Scottish Parliament and to the European Community. Fishing is an example which I believe should be in the control of the Scottish Office or of a Scottish Parliament rather than the United Kingdom Parliament. A Minister from Scotland should be responsible for fishery negotiations in Europe.
Local authorities and others are ahead of the Government's lethargic approach to Europe. I give it to Strathclyde region that it has had a representative in Brussels for the last five years. We have just heard the announcement of £400 million for Strathclyde. We shall have to consider the fact that the Argyll and Bute region is not to benefit.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Surely the hon. Lady must admit that every local authority worker in Argyll was over the moon when that region came into Strathclyde because rates of pay went up. That is all the workers shouted about when they came into Strathclyde. At least they had something to aim for.

Mrs. Michie: The local authority workers may have shouted with joy, but I and my party are in favour of single-tier local authorities. Strathclyde has done well, but there are many things that it does not do. It is unfortunate that we are not sharing in the £400 million of expenditure. On roads, for example, Strathclyde region decided in 1976 that it would not adopt any roads in Argyll and Bute that had not been kept up previously by the council. That is bad for the development of business. I am still trying to persuade Strathclyde region to reverse that policy.
It is interesting to compare the antiquated regional policy of the Government with the more progressive and enlightened federalism of other European countries. In West Germany the 11 Länder have modern information offices and lobby centres. They also have two observers who attend European Community ministerial meetings. At least five Spanish areas, including Catalonia and the Basque region, have representation in Europe. That is what I want to see for Scotland when it has its own Parliament.
The continued refusal of the Government and the Tory party in Scotland to acknowledge the wish of the Scottish people to control their own affairs never ceases to amaze me. The Conservative party has to answer some simple questions. Does the party recognise that Scotland is a nation? Does it accept that the Scottish people are entitled to determine their own affairs and that their wishes should be paramount? Is there not a great inconsistency when the Government proudly give self-determination to 1,800 islanders 3,000 miles away, yet arrogantly deny it to 5 million people 400 miles up the road?
The only sensible way of governing this country is to have a federal United Kingdom. The Secretary of State is a professed federalist, yet he has said that there is no demand for federalism. If we want out into the highways and byways of England and asked the people if they cared whether Scotland had its own Parliament, they would say, "Great; why should it not?" Some hon. Members representing constituencies south of the border think that we have over-representation. I am sure that many hon. Members would be delighted to see the back of us if we went to our own Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. They would have much more time to debate their own affairs and we would not have to debate our affairs more often than not at midnight.
Where does all this leave Scotland? We are being governed without consent. The Government always claim to act in the name of freedom and choice, but it is they who decide what the choices are to be. It was put very well in the document "A Claim of Right for Scotland":
There is a profound hypocrisy in saying that the Scots should stand on their own feet while simultaneously denying them management of their own political affairs, and that denial is a clear deprivation of choice for Scots. Scots can stand on their own feet only by refusing to accept the constitution which denies them the power to do so.
I wish that the Government would understand these words.
The Tory Government claim, and say in their amendment, that they are bringing prosperity to Scotland. Even if that were the case, that is not an argument for denying the Scottish people the right to have a say in their affairs. It is as though the Government think that it is sufficient to offer us financial carrots while beating us with a constitutional stick. The case for home rule is not solely or predominantly an economic one and no one should be misled into thinking that this is now the case. We cannot be bought and sold.
The most pernicious suggestion that I have heard is that the only options for Scotland are the status quo and independence. That is a dangerous game to play. Polarisation of the debate into one of unionism and independence may result in many people being pushed against their will and interest into the separatist camp. The Secretary of State would be gambling that the voters will decide that they are British first and Scottish second. That is a bet which he would not win.

Sir Hector Monro: It is not often that I follow a ghost party, but I am doing so now. I commiserate with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who has been abandoned, not only in the election, but by her party tonight. It is not often that we have a Scottish debate at which none of the SLD Members or Democrats


turns up. That shows that the proud words that she has been delivering about the Scottish nation do not hold true for her colleagues.
I am enjoying tonight because, from both sides of the House, we have had the best demolition job that I have ever seen. The SNP must rue the moment that it chose the subject for this debate and coerced the Ulstermen into giving it the opportunity to hold it. Throughout the evening, holes have been drilled into its policies, where it has a united one at all. Throughout its existence it has been a party of isolation with a determination to break up the United Kingdom. This slogan of independence in Europe is but a facade. Even in late 1987, it was recommending a referendum so that it could get out of Europe if possible.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) mentioned the SNP's brash attitude to electioneering. Those of us who have been involved in elections over many years have been saddened by the attitude of the SNP and its workers. There has always been civility in Scottish electioneering, and the rudeness, incivility and near-riot attitude of the SNP supporters do it no good. Much of this has been activated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars). He changed his party three times. He has written a book called "No Turning Back", but that is because nobody will have him back.
The SNP staked all on, and crowed like a rooster about, independence in Europe in the latest election. The ploy fooled no one and failed miserably.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Tory party did badly as well.

Sir Hector Monro: Touché. We increased our vote substantially.

Mr. Home Robertson: Not enough.

Sir Hector Monro: I accept that. One cannot win them all all the time.
We are coming to 1992, which is all about free trade and enterprise. Like the Labour party, the SNP has a Socialist doctrine in favour of Government controls and is opposed to the objective of Europe. During the 1974–79 period, the Labour Government had a great opportunity to take us into Europe with some enthusiasm, but they did not. They mucked up the common agricultural policy and did not get back one penny in rebates—something that we managed to achieve later.
We have not yet had an explanation of the Labour party's policy of independence in the United Kingdom, but I do not want to spoil our slightly more friendly relationship tonight.
In the European elections, the SNP flagship was the policy of independence in Europe, on which it hoped to win more seats, but it did not. The Scottish people did not endorse its policies. They were not taken in by the SNP budget, which was manifestly inaccurate. The income was grossly overstated and the expenditure was inaccurate. No person who thinks about the Scottish economy could do so without including in any policy the use of nuclear power. However, the SNP is dead against anything to do with nuclear energy, and so is against a nuclear deterrent, without which the United Kingdom and Scotland would be open to threats from another country. The SNP's opposition to that shows that it does not have its basic priorities right in terms of peace and defence.
The Scotland about which the SNP talks seems to be different from the country in which we all live. It is difficult to recognise the reality of the picture of Scotland that it paints. The SNP runs it down and makes no allowance for great achievements by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Prime Minister. Let us take the example of unemployment. In May 1987, 337,000 people were unemployed—13·6 per cent. of the working population. Today, 239,000 are unemployed—9·6 per cent. The figure has reduced by nearly 100,000 in two years, and by four percentage points. My constituency has seen a 40 per cent. drop in unemployment in those two years, which shows that the economy is working.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman's majority has gone down even more.

Sir Hector Monro: The Labour party came a rather bad second at the last election in Dumfries. I am not in the least bit worried about that.
There is no complacency in Scotland about unemployment. We have the Industry Department for Scotland, the enterprise trusts, the Scottish Development Agency, Government initiatives and employment training. All this is good for Scotland, but it is decried by the SNP. It is time that both that party and the Labour party made some effort to look at the good news in Scotland and how successful economic policies for the future of our country have been.

Mr. Wilson: The Tories lost two seats—that is good news.

Sir Hector Monro: Do not spoil it.
The Opposition parties fail to notice the dramatic improvements such as the development of roads like the M74, which is starting soon, the A75 and the roads in the north-east, and new hospital buildings and home ownership, which is going like a bomb. The quality of life, which is so important in Scotland, is improving rapidly. Company profits are the highest that they have been for 20 years in the United Kingdom and it is from there that we get the investment to provide jobs for Scotland. All this is good news, but it would be destroyed by the SNP's policy of independence.
There is Unionism and cohesion in Scotland. It does not want to be over-governed, whether by an assembly, by independence or by breaking up the United Kingdom. We want consolidation and confidence for the future, a climate of expansion and an ever-improving standard of living. We are producing that. The SNP, the Socialists and the Democrats will destroy it.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Earlier in the debate the governor-general asked me to explain why my party argues for membership of the European Community as distinct from the old Union, when Scotland has been part of the Union for a long time but part of the European Community for only a short time. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) put it rather well. He said:
It is important that we understand the changing definition of sovereignty. If one changes the definition of sovereignty, power moves from old concentrations to new, which is a source of resentment. How could it be otherwise? We are at the heart of that dilemma because power is moving from this place, which causes a growing and legitimate concern."—[Official Report, 18 May 1989; Vol. 153, c 536.]


Indeed, it was in recognition of that change that I first spoke about independence in Europe on 3 May 1972, as reported in Hansard at column 531.
Leaving aside the SLD, at first sight there appear to be three options: independence in Europe, the status quo and Labour party policy. In fact, there are just two options: first, independence in Europe and, secondly, the two variants of Unionism. We must compare one with the other. I shall first discuss the Tory variant of Unionism. It requires us to accept a continued legislative incorporation in an integrated political system.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) kept talking about the unitary state. Under the Tory party, that political system subordinates Scottish policy to that of England, as we are currently witnessing with the Government's policy of high interest rates to cool down the south-east. Scotland certainly does not need cooling down in the economic circumstances north of the border.
Scottish political power is non-existent within that Tory system. The governor-general is not Scotland's man in the Cabinet; he is Thatcher's man in Scotland, and the majority of people in Scotland recognise that. The power structure of the United Kingdom makes that quite obvious. The Secretary of State for Scotland—and I do not intend to be offensive—is a placeman. He does not command his position in the Cabinet from a Scottish power base. He does not tell the Cabinet what to do on Scottish policy; he is told what the policy will be and it is "Scottified" by the Scottish Office. He has no veto ability. He could resign and be replaced by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), then the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and then, ultimately, the hon. Member for Tayside, North.
The Secretary of State needs to develop a lobbying skill. It has always been the case that those who can lobby best make the best Secretaries of State. Of course, in European policy Scotland is not even quoted. I can sum up the Tory attitude to Scotland within the United Kingdom in a simple sentence—no power, little influence, a lobbying outfit; and within the European Community—Scotland cannot exercise any power.
The Labour party variant is slightly different. Its amendment contains the words "within the United Kingdom", which makes it clear that, like the Tories, its main purpose is to preserve the Union. It thinks that the best way to do that is through devolution—the devolving of power to a Scottish assembly. We must strip the Labour party of its camouflage of the slogan "Independence in the United Kingdom". It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) would not give way to any hon. Member wanting to question him on that slogan.
Stripped of that camouflage, Labour's policy involves a mechanism for the distribution of resources between health, education, housing, roads, local government, administration of regional funds—not the policy decision on how the funds should be created—and control of the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which are currently within the Secretary of State's remit. Labour party policy contains no wealth-creation measures inherent in macro-economic decisions such as how to allocate

resources between consumption and investment, interest rate policy, fiscal policy, oil policy, and depletion of oil policy.
Rumour has it that the hon. Member for Garscadden recently went abroad for the first time in 10 years and discovered the Bavarian solution, which is a bureau of information lobby, once again inside Brussels. In reality, the Labour party envisages a subservient role for Scotland within the United Kingdom. That becomes most evident in its defence policy. It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Garscadden did not want to refer to the part of our motion dealing with the question of Trident.
Scotland on Sunday on 12 March stated:
Labour's defence review, due to be published in May, has run into trouble with the party in Scotland, which pledged unswerving support yesterday for unilateral disarmament.
With Shadow defence spokesman Mr. Martin O'Neill listening, a succession of delegates demanded retention of unilateralism in the crucial review document which is expected to move the party into a flexible position on nuclear defence …
In a clear warning to the leadership not to change course, the Inverness conference voted overwhelmingly to maintain the present defence policy. The unequivocal position backed by the Scottish Executive leaves leader Mr. Neil Kinnock and Mr. O'Neill in no doubt that a softening on unilateralism will be resisted in Scotland.
That was the decision of the Labour party's Scottish conference in March, but we still await the resistance in Scotland. When it comes to a division of policy within the Unionist context set by the Labour party, there is no question who is the boss—he who lies south of the border.
We were told by the Labour party that it would entrench a Scottish Assembly and that once it was established there would be no possibility of this Parliament overturning it. We have seen the spectacle of Labour Members of Parliament going to the Scottish Constitutional Convention and signing documents stating that they supported Scottish sovereignty. That is very strange because on 19 June, when dealing with an SLD motion on civil liberties and a Bill of Rights, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) attacked the idea of a Bill of Rights and said that the Opposition would not support the motion for two reasons:
First, the main problem with a Bill of Rights in this country is due to the nature of the British constitution, which is unwritten … In England"—
he does not pretend that it is the United Kingdom—
there is no such system. Instead, this country's fundamental constitutional doctrine is the supremacy of Parliament"—[Official Report, 19 June 1989; vol. 155, c. 90.]
The deputy leader of the Labour party attacked Charter 88 in an article in The Guardian in December 1988. He said:
The attractions of a written constitution are obvious enough. Entrenched clauses"—
which I thought was Labour party policy on an assembly—
—which can only be changed by complicated and protracted constitutional amendment—limit the power of government. It is impossible to incorporate those attractions into our system. British democracy is—for better or for worse—based on the absolute sovereignty of parliament.
In other words, what Parliament gives, Parliament can take away.
Of course, the Labour party sings a different song north of the border, and says that the Scottish people are sovereign. Down here, when speaking to the bosses in London, it parrots the English constitutional view.

Mr. Darling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sillars: No, I will not give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Oh, all right then.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has criticised an observation of mine about the British constitution and the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament. I do not understand why he should criticise a statement of fact, whether or not he agrees with it. I note that in "Dod's Companion" he lists that he once studied law. He did not say that he had actually completed the course. I advise him to do so, because he will find that that is exactly what the British constitution states, whether or not he likes it. He cannot criticise people who simply set out the facts.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now answer the question that his hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) would not answer: what will the nationalists do if they find that the terms for remaining in —or for entering—Europe are unacceptable? Is he advocating independence for Scotland alone with Greenland?

Mr. Sillars: The hon. Gentleman wishes to divert attention from the fact that the Labour party signed a declaration of sovereignty at the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I have read the policy review. It is reasonable for the Labour party to say that it will alter the British constitution, but it is not reasonable for it to say to the Scots. "We will alter it for you," but then come to Westminster and say that it cannot be altered and repeat time and again that the sovereignty of this Parliament is a constitutional fact of life. They cannot endlessly repeat that the sovereignty of this Parliament is a constitutional fact of life. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central cannot get out of that.

Mr. Harry Ewing: rose—

Mr. Sillars: I am sorry, but I am not prepared to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. The hon. Gentleman was always a good trade union leader, but he never had to negotiate with me.
There is a problem in delivering the Labour party's variant of Unionism, because it is fundamentally a Unionist party. It accepts the sovereignty of Parliament. It may tell the Scottish people, "We have conceived the idea of a Scottish Assembly, which we believe has great merit. We believe that it is essential for the Scottish people, but unless we can carry the vote south of the border we cannot guarantee to deliver it." That is the Labour party's position as a Unionist party. It made the same argument in respect of Trident, saying, "We do not want it, but if the Government say we must accept it, we must."

Mr. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Sillars: No, I shall not give way, but I am reminded that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), who claims to be an old friend of mine, made the public statement that, come what may, there will be a Scottish Assembly after the next general election. When I wrote a nice letter asking what he meant by that, he replied that he would tell lots of people but would not tell me. On the basis of that old friendship, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Sillars: No. I am reaching the end of my speech.
Tonight, we have heard a defence of the Union from Conservative and Labour Members.

Mr. David Lambie: The hon. Gentleman did not serve in this House for 13 years.

Mr. Sillars: The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) has not spoken in this House for 13 years.
What is so good about that Union? Is it a paradise that we are supposed to be defending? A report entitled "The State of the Nation" claims that in Scotland homelessness has doubled, annual housebuilding has dropped from 9,000 new starts to 4,000, NHS beds have been cut by 3,000, while the waiting lists stand at 77,000, unemployment is up by 85 per cent., manufacturing jobs have been cut by one third, and 18,000 teenagers have lost income support because of social security changes.
The report also claims that the number of Scottish families that have had their gas cut off for being unable to pay their bills has risen by 20 per cent. Wages too have suffered. In 1979 Scottish workers were paid on average £7·30 a week less than those in the south-east of England. It has since risen to £39·50 a week. That is what the Labour party says in its document, "The State of the Nation". That is what the Labour party in Scotland has been defending.
The epitaph of the Labour party in Scotland came through very clearly in the debate. At the end of the day, when Labour is boiled down to its Unionist essence, it would rather have a Tory Government elected in England governing Scotland than an independent Scottish Labour Government in an independent Scotland. That is Labour's epitaph.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I must confess that I thought the debate would be somewhat pointless, based as it was on the fraudulent and meaningless slogan of independence in Europe—which is almost as meaningless as talking about divorce within marriage. However, the debate turned out to be worth while because it succeeded in extracting one substantive fact from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars)—that his view is that after Scotland's separation from the rest of the United Kingdom, and after that curious sleight of hand whereby Scotland will somehow find itself to have become a fully fledged member of the European Community, the power of taxation over the people of Scotland should be in the hands of a European Parliament. Regardless of the Council of Ministers and of the view of a Scottish Parliament, the hon. Member for Govan seeks to impose the power of taxation on Scotland not from Westminster but from Strasbourg, giving it a greater power over Scotland than Westminster would have. The power to tax is one of the most important there is and clearly the slogan "subservience in Europe" is more appropriate than "independence in Europe" on that basis.
I am happy to talk about Scotland in Europe because I welcome comparisons between it and other European countries. Since 1980, Scotland has enjoyed faster growth than any other country in Europe. The Fraser of Allander Institute forecasts that the Scottish economy will grow faster than that of the United Kingdom in the next year. Its manufacturing productivity has grown in the current decade faster not only than in Europe but in the United


States and Japan. Our exports grew again last year, to 50 per cent. of the total compared with 25 per cent. since we first joined the Community.
Scotland's manufacturing exports are higher per head not only than those of other countries in Europe but of Germany and Japan. Scotland enjoys lower unemployment than France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Spain and Ireland, and it is falling faster. Scotland is playing a full part in Europe and is well able to stand comparison.
Scotland is also benefiting enormously from Europe. Although there is a 35 per cent. work force restriction on assisted areas under the rules of the European Community, in Scotland 65 per cent. of the working population are accounted for in development areas. More than one quarter of all European aid to the United Kingdom comes to Scotland. Over the past decade it has received about £730 million from the European regional development fund, £250 million from the social fund, £1·5 billion in loans from the European investment bank and from the European Coal and Steel Community.
More than £3 billion has been invested in infrastructure and in industrial regeneration. Under a succession of initiatives in recent years, special help has been given through the Glasgow programme to Tayside, West Lothian and the Western Isles, and through the agricultural development programme to the other islands. More recently, the £12 million RENAVAL programme has been established for the shipbuilding areas of the Clyde, and another £73 million is being provided for an integrated operation in the Highlands and Islands. That is the biggest operation of its kind ever in Scotland or in Europe.
Under the Strathclyde programme, £1 billion of European money, United Kingdom taxpayers' money and private sector money will be brought together in a carefully targeted and integrated programme to help the Strathclyde economy through training, infrastructure, technology, innovation, and its environment. All that has been achieved through the activities of the Scottish Office with the assistance of the United Kingdom's negotiating power in Brussels.
Scottish National party Members are always keen to compare Scotland with other small countries in Europe, but if they look to Denmark, they will see that Scotland has received six times as much from the European regional development fund since it was founded than has Denmark. We are preparing for the next major European event, with the arrival of the single European market in 1992. Scotland will benefit from that also as it's companies prepare for Europe. In 1979, only one thing was binding the European Community together—our money and a lot of red tape.
The British Government have helped to develop the Single European Act, deregulate Europe and open up new opportunities for Scotland, as for the rest of the United Kingdom. Just as the single British Act of 1707 benefited Scotland, so too will the Single European Act. The SNP's single Scottish Act would change all that, and overnight Scotland would become a small, irrelevant country left out in the cold. When Scotland came to seek admission to the European Community, the resounding answer from the other member states would be "Nein", "Non", "Nunta", "Niemals", and "No di certo".
Interdependence is the key to the future of Scotland and of Europe—not independence, but the coming together of nations that our Conservative Government have persistently espoused and helped to develop. Scottish independence in Europe is a fraudulent conception. The Scottish National party is not internationalist but the party of little Scotlanders. Scottish nationalists are not free marketeers but Socialists. For years they fought tooth and nail against membership of the European Community, and now they are enjoying a death-bed conversion that carries no conviction. I urge the House to throw out the motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 5, Noes 297.

Division No. 266]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)



Salmond, Alex
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sillars, Jim
Mr. Andrew Welsh and


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Mrs. Margaret Ewing.


Wigley, Dafydd



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Alton, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amess, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Amos, Alan
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Arbuthnot, James
Cohen, Harry


Armstrong, Hilary
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cope, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Robert
Cormack, Patrick


Atkinson, David
Cox, Tom


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cran, James


Baldry, Tony
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Batiste, Spencer
Darling, Alistair


Battle, John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Day, Stephen


Benyon, W.
Dewar, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dixon, Don


Bevan, David Gilroy
Doran, Frank


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dorrell, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bowis, John
Durant, Tony


Boyes, Roland
Dykes, Hugh


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Eadie, Alexander


Brazier, Julian
Eastham, Ken


Bright, Graham
Emery, Sir Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evennett, David


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fallon, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fatchett, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Favell, Tony


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Buck, Sir Antony
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Budgen, Nicholas
Fishburn, John Dudley


Burns, Simon
Flannery, Martin


Burt, Alistair
Fookes, Dame Janet


Butler, Chris
Forman, Nigel


Butterfill, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Callaghan, Jim
Forth, Eric


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Derek


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Carrington, Matthew
Franks, Cecil


Cash, William
French, Douglas


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Fry, Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Fyfe, Maria






Galbraith, Sam
Maclennan, Robert


Gale, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


Galloway, George
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gardiner, George
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Madden, Max


Gill, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Malins, Humfrey


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mans, Keith


Gow, Ian
Maples, John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Maude, Hon Francis


Grist, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Maxton, John


Hague, William
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hannam, John
Miller, Sir Hal


Hardy, Peter
Mills, Iain


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Harris, David
Mitchell, Sir David


Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger


Hayes, Jerry
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Haynes, Frank
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayward, Robert
Morrison, Sir Charles


Heathcoat-Amory. David
Moss, Malcolm


Heddle, John
Neale, Gerrard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hill, James
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hinchliffe, David
Norris, Steve


Hind, Kenneth
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Home Robertson, John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Page, Richard


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Paice, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pike, Peter L.


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Ingram, Adam
Prescott, John


Irvine, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Jack, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Janman, Tim
Redwood, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Johnston, Sir Russell
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kennedy, Charles
Robertson, George


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sackville, Hon Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kirkwood, Archy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shersby, Michael


Knox, David
Skinner, Dennis


Lambie, David
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lang, Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Latham, Michael
Snape, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Speed, Keith


Lee, John (Pendle)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stevens, Lewis


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lord, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McAvoy, Thomas
Strang, Gavin


McCrindle, Robert
Sumberg, David


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McKelvey, William
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


McLeish, Henry
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)





Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whitney, Ray


Thorne, Neil
Widdecombe, Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Tredinnick, David
Wilshire, David


Trippier, David
Wilson, Brian


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Nicholas


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Walden, George
Wolfson, Mark


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Worthington, Tony


Wallace, James
Wray, Jimmy


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Warren, Kenneth



Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Tellers for the Noes:


Watts, John
Mr. David Maclean and


Wheeler, John
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 98.

Division No. 267]
[7.11 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Durant, Tony


Amos, Alan
Dykes, Hugh


Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evennett, David


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fallon, Michael


Ashby, David
Favell, Tony


Atkins, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, David
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
French, Douglas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gale, Roger


Benyon, W.
Gardiner, George


Bevan, David Gilroy
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gow, Ian


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bright, Graham
Grist, Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hague, William


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hanley, Jeremy


Buck, Sir Antony
Hannam, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Alan


Butler, Chris
Hayes, Jerry


Butterfill, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayward, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Heddle, John


Cash, William
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chapman, Sydney
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon John
Irvine, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Janman, Tim


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)






King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Portillo, Michael


Kirkhope, Timothy
Powell, William (Corby)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Raffan, Keith


Knox, David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lang, Ian
Redwood, John


Latham, Michael
Renton, Tim


Lawrence, Ivan
Riddick, Graham


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Speed, Keith


McCrindle, Robert
Stevens, Lewis


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Malins, Humfrey
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mans, Keith
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maples, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thorne, Neil


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thurnham, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trippier, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Trotter, Neville


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Walden, George


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Miller, Sir Hal
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Mills, Iain
Waller, Gary


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mitchell, Sir David
Warren, Kenneth


Moate, Roger
Watts, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Wells, Bowen


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Wheeler, John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Widdecombe, Ann


Moss, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Neale, Gerrard
Wilshire, David


Neubert, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wolfson, Mark


Norris, Steve
Wood, Timothy


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Yeo, Tim


Oppenheim, Phillip
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Page, Richard



Paice, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mr. David Maclean and


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


Porter, David (Waveney)



NOES


Allen, Graham
Bermingham, Gerald


Alton, David
Boateng, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Boyes, Roland


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Barron, Kevin
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Buckley, George J.





Callaghan, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McKelvey, William


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McLeish, Henry


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Maclennan, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Madden, Max


Cohen, Harry
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Maxton, John


Cox, Tom
Michael, Alun


Cryer, Bob
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dewar, Donald
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dixon, Don
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dobson, Frank
Nellist, Dave


Douglas, Dick
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Eadie, Alexander
Patchett, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter L.


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Redmond, Martin


Flannery, Martin
Reid, Dr John


Foster, Derek
Robertson, George


Fyfe, Maria
Salmond, Alex


Galbraith, Sam
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Galloway, George
Sillars, Jim


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Snape, Peter


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spearing, Nigel


Gordon, Mildred
Steel, Rt Hon David


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Strang, Gavin


Haynes, Frank
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Vaz, Keith


Home Robertson, John
Wallace, James


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wareing, Robert N.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Illsley, Eric
Wigley, Dafydd


Ingram, Adam
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Wilson, Brian


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kennedy, Charles
Worthington, Tony


Kirkwood, Archy
Wray, Jimmy


Lambie, David



Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Tellers for the Noes:


Livsey, Richard
Mr. Allen Adams and


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Nigel Griffiths.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes the continued success of the present Government's policies in securing for Scotland record living standards and the advantages of membership of the European Community within the United Kingdom, alongside a strong defence of the United Kingdom's essential interests, and the rejection of the Scottish National Party's policy of independence in Europe by the overwhelming majority of voters in Scotland at the European elections; and recognises the potential damage to the real interests of Scotland underlying the constitutional change advocated by opposition parties.

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, he now considered. —[Mr. Thorne.]

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that towards the end of the Second Reading debate Opposition Members pressed the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who is responsible for the Bill, for an undertaking that when the new ticket barriers were introduced on London Underground and the penalty fares scheme came into effect, people would not be forced to use the mechanical ticket barriers. The hon. Gentleman gave that undertaking. I asked:
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there will always be an alternative to using the mechanical ticket barriers?
He replied:
The intention is that there will always be that option available."—[Official Report, 6 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 762.]
That undertaking has not been carried out. That is fairly serious, particularly when private Bills are involved. There is a procedure by means of which undertakings are given, either in writing or orally in Committee or in the House, that something will happen. If that does not happen, the principle of the private Bill procedure is defeated.
About three weeks ago I took up with the hon. Member for Ilford, South the fact that he had given this undertaking. It had become obvious at Westminster Underground station that people were being forced to go through the mechanical barriers. He asked for more information and eventually sent to me a copy of a letter which says:
The procedure at all stations where automatic gates are in operation is that a member of staff is available to give assistance if persons have difficulty using those gates and he may invite the passenger to use an alternative gate which he operates manually.
It is quite clear from a meeting that I had yesterday morning with the hon. Gentleman that the individual passenger does not have the right, for which I asked and about which I was given an assurance, not to go through the automatic gates. He can ask the London Regional Transport representative at the barrier, but if that individual decides that he must go through the gates he is denied that choice.
It is quite clear that the House was misled. Apart from making that statement, the agents for the Bill had the privilege of being in the Box. I understand that London Regional Transport representatives were also present. They made no attempt between 6 February when the Bill had its Second Reading and the point at which I took it up with them, three weeks ago, to correct that mistake.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Bennett: I am coming to that. The point of order is that since all the rules of procedure have been broken the hon. Gentleman ought to get up and apologise to the House, on his own behalf and on behalf of the agents and London Regional Transport, for misleading the House, or you ought to rule that because there has been a gross

breach of procedure we should not proceed with the Bill at this stage. It should be withdrawn and then reintroduced so that, having broken the conventions of the House since they gave an undertaking on a private Bill, the hon. Gentleman and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am responsible only for what happens in the Chamber. Whatever anyone—be they agents or anybody else—does outside the Chamber is not my responsibility. They do not take part in our proceedings. The hon. Gentleman complains that words were used in the House that constituted an undertaking or an assurance, that it has not been fulfilled and that it shows a lack of credibility or sincerity. The responsibility for that rests not with me but with the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who gave the undertaking, and the House. The hon. Member for Ilford, South has heard what has been said. He may wish during the debate to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). They are not, however, matters for me, nor are they matters upon which I can make a judgment or take action.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a point of order upon which you can give guidance to the House. Hon. Members promote private Bills and we rely on other hon. Members to give assurances. One expects such assurances to be honoured. However, this assurance was given on behalf of an entirely separate organisation that is seeking additional powers. I seek your guidance on whether the House should adjourn for a few minutes while an assurance is sought, or find some means by which clarification can be sought. If that does not happen, there is no opportunity for the hon. Member to seek guidance from the agents or the promoters, who are in the Box for that very purpose. They do not sit there just to have an overview of our procedures.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that whatever takes place on the other side of the Bar of the House has nothing to do with me or with our proceedings in the Chamber. That is something that we do not recognise.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that when assurances are given in the Chamber the House ought to adjourn to check the validity or the strength of those assurances.

Mr. Cryer: No, that is not what I said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that that was what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting to me.

Mr. Cryer: Let me guide you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was suggesting that, when an hon. Member is asked for an assurance, either he can produce a bland platitude which does not mean anything, or he can consult the sponsors, who may be beyond your knowledge or understanding according to the conventions of the House. I was suggesting that to allow the sponsor of a Bill to seek guidance, surely the occupant of the Chair has powers to adjourn the House to allow discussions to take place on an assurance requested by hon. Members, in view of discrepancies between the assurance solemnly given in the House and the outcome. There appears to be such a chasm between the two that there should be some means in our procedures of making sure that an hon. Member is not placed in the difficult and embarrassing position of being


accused of letting down the standards of the House by not allowing or giving credence to the assurances that he has given. That is what I am seeking from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He has been in the House long enough to know that our procedures usually allow sufficient time for hon. Members in charge of a Bill, or those giving assurances, to reflect or perhaps seek guidance before the debate is concluded so that they may give the House a more mature and considered view. That is why we usually have an interval between a motion or amendment being tabled and finally responded to in the light of what has been said in a debate. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I do not have the power, nor would it be practical for the occupant of the Chair, to adjourn the House in circumstances that may fit the situation described by the hon. Gentleman. He knows as well as I do that on many occasions assurances have been given by Members in charge of a Bill, whether or not they were Ministers, and subsequently doubt has been cast on the validity or exact interpretation of those assurances.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If a Committee considering a private Bill makes a special report asking for assurances from a Government Department—which may not be the Department sponsoring the Bill—in those circumstances can the occupant of the Chair make a ruling to bring the matter back to Committee so that assurances can be sought on the Committee's special report?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That does not apply to present circumstances. I shall not seek to rule on a hypothesis or on proceedings on another Bill.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will you reconsider the points that you made a few moments ago on two bases, Mr. Deputy Speaker? A private Bill is totally different from Government legislation. Traditionally, Ministers try to get Government legislation through and the onus is on Opposition and Conservative Members to press the Minister in charge of the Bill to make sure any undertaking given is absolutely clear.
I understand that the tradition for private Bills is rather different. Normally assurances are given by the agents or by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill in the House on behalf of the agents and are treated rather differently. I realise that the private Bill procedure has become discredited and the sooner that we manage to implement the procedures to get rid of them from the Floor of the House the better. Surely the principle that any undertaking given is upheld should be adhered to.
As I understand it, you have a responsibility as Chairman of Ways and Means to vet names which are put forward to be included on the A list of parliamentary agents. I understand that that vetting is to ensure that those agents are people of honour who will adhere to the tradition on private Bills that undertakings given are carried out.
If the House allows an undertaking to be breached tonight without any apology or any other action being taken, and if the agents do not come forward—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow a debate or a discussion about the credentials of agents. They do not take part in our proceedings, nor do they speak in the Chamber. Any assurances given in the Chamber have been given by an hon. Member or hon. Members, and they are responsible for their words to the House. It is not for me to question the bases of their assurances.
I have been rather more forthcoming than I might normally have been in seeking to explain the basis of a ruling that I have given. The hon. Gentleman is now coming dangerously near to seeking to debate my ruling, and I cannot tolerate that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to address the motion before the House, the House will hear him.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I would not want to question your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish merely to make the point that procedures on private Bills are being discredited. That means that hon. Members who are regularly approached by agents asking them to withdraw blocking motions will no longer be able to accept the word of those agents. That is deplorable. I hoped that you could take steps to ensure speedy action on the breach that has occurred with this particular agent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Once again the hon. Gentleman is making allegations the foundation and substance of which I am not in a position to judge. The assurance which he claims to have been breached was given by an hon. Member in the Chamber. That hon. Member alone is responsible for the credibility or sincerity with which that assurance was given.
I am most reluctant to enter into a debate on my ruling, but surely in the course of a debate, if hon. Members are dissatisfied with a provision of a Bill before the House, they seek an assurance about it on the basis of which they are then prepared to allow the Bill to make progress. If they subsequently find that that assurance has not been fulfilled or was given without sincerity or credibility, they will take that into account in deciding whether the Bill should be allowed to proceed further. It is a matter on which the House will exercise its judgment in the course of our proceedings. I very much hope that we can now get on.

Dr. John Marek: Perhaps it would be helpful if you Mr. Deputy Speaker, were to allow the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) to explain whether an assurance was given and the reasons for it later when we debate the Bill? Were he to do that we could make progress, as many hon. Members are slightly bemused as to exactly what is going on.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I have been waiting for 10 minutes to get in and now I am pleased to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that if he is pursuing the point of order and satisfying the point that has been raised by the Opposition, he should bear it in mind that if he turns his remarks into a speech he may pre-empt his right to speak later? I am glad to allow the House to hear him on the point of order, but if he wishes to reserve the right to reply to any debate on the motion before the House, he would be wise to consider his remarks and perhaps to save them until the end.

Mr. Thorne: Perhaps I should take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you think that I am likely to transgress that rule perhaps you will be kind enough to tell me and I will resume my seat immediately.
I shall try to encapsulate the position. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for warning me that he would raise the matter. I would be grateful if he would refer to the paragraph before those from which he quoted. I said:
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned inoperative machinery and I have answered that point. Passengers pushing prams will be able to pass through the manned barrier."—[Official Report, 6 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 762.]
I was referring primarily to the manual barrier for those who push prams or have other difficulties. That is the basis on which I was speaking.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: That is ridiculous. The hon. Gentleman should read out my intervention.

Mr. Thorne: It has already been read. I confirm that I was talking primarily about people who have difficulty in getting through the automatic barriers. I should like to make that absolutely clear. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is also concerned that people should have some freedom to choose whether they go through the automatic barriers. That is a rather different matter. People have their tickets checked far more efficiently through the automatic barriers and should therefore be encouraged to use those.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Dubiety was raised by the last comments of the hon. Member for Ilford. South (Mr. Thorne). I was in the House on that day and the assurance was not taken as relating only to people pushing prams. It was taken as an assurance that everyone would have the choice of using the manual barriers. I will now come to my point of order, as I can see that you are getting very itchy, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It must be a matter of serious concern that the House was misled in that way. I am not saying that the House was misled deliberately, but I and other hon. Members who were present on that day thought that the assurance was a general assurance for passengers using the barriers. In view of the point that the hon. Member for Ilford, South has just made, the House was misled. The Bill might not have received its Second Reading if we had been given a limited assurance, rather than the general assurance we believed had been given.
In view of the seriousness of the matter and the fact that the assurance goes to the heart of the Bill, our proceedings should be put back from tonight so that the matter can be considered again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have made it clear that no matter how strong, weak, credible or otherwise an assurance given by an hon. Member, it is not a matter for the Chair, but a matter for the House to take into account in forming its judgment about the Question before the House or that may be before the House. It is not a matter for me, as I have made clear several times. We can now move on to debate the Question before the House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am appalled by the behaviour of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne). Obviously, I cannot call him a liar in the House and I shall not do so, but his statement was the most outrageous I

have ever heard in the House of Commons. I wrote to him three weeks ago on this point. At no time did he put forward the alibi that he has tried to claim today about prams. His argument was always that there was an alternative available in the present operation, which was that people could ask to go through the manual barriers. If he was really an honourable gentleman, and if he really believed that his undertaking related only to people with prams, he would have made that point to me during the three weeks since we had that correspondence. I am utterly amazed that he should now have made his statement. I am also amazed by the behaviour of the agents, and I will put down a motion for the firm of Sherwood and Co. to be removed from the list of parliamentary agents.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is now saying that the promoter of the Bill had three weeks in which to make his position clear, and he was extremely reluctant to get to his feet tonight to produce his off-the-cuff remark. My hon. Friend is telling the House that the promoter has failed for three weeks to clarify the solemn assurance on the barriers he gave to the House. Like my hon. Friend, I am amazed that he chose the last possible moment to open his mouth and produce an explanation that is wholly contrary to that clearly implied in Hansard.

Mr. Bennett: I must make it clear that I am not saying that the hon. Member for Ilford, South did not reply to me in those three weeks, but I am saying that he never brought forward the alibi that he was referring only to prams. This evening is the first time he has mentioned that.
When I had a meeting with London Regional Transport about Westminster station and Victoria station, London Regional Transport never made that point. I find it amazing that the hon. Gentleman should have said what he said tonight. He is responsible for his words in this House, but the parliamentary agents are responsible for the way in which private Bills go through the House. Parliamentary agents who feel that they can treat the House in such a way are not fit to serve as parliamentary agents. I shall table a motion to have Sherwood removed from the list of parliamentary agents who enjoy privileges in the House. The failure of Sherwood to ask the hon. Gentleman to apologise to the House is outrageous and brings into disrepute the way in which we proceed on private Bills.
We rise regularly to object to private Bills. The agents immediately get on to us, find out our reasons for objecting and often, as a result of negotiations, we accept their word as honourable individuals and remove our block. In due course, letters go backwards and forwards, amendments are tabled and other procedures take place in the House. If agents can see an undertaking being given to the House and then broken, we can have no faith in them. The rest of the parliamentary agents on the A list must have a strong interest in having a company such as Sherwood removed from the list as soon as possible, because Sherwood has brought the whole system into disrepute.
I was hoping to talk on Report about the wider issues of the Bill. Most of us have watched the major deterioration of the London Underground system once it was taken away from London Transport, which was made up of elected representatives. Were London Regional Transport acccountable to democratically elected individuals, the present industrial dispute would not be


taking place and there would not be an attempt to introduce the ticket barriers, which are so degrading to human beings. People who are rather larger than will fit comfortably through the barriers are forced to make a special request to have the gates opened so that they can go through. I am also certain that an elected body would not have presided over the gross inefficiency and lack of safety that have developed on London Underground.
An elected body would not have come forward with proposals for a penalty fares scheme when it had so obviously alienated the public that it had itself created a situation in which many people felt that they could get their own back on bureaucratic organisation by not paying their fares. London Regional Transport has brought that upon itself. An elected body would also not have behaved so autocratically to the trade unions.
If the penalty fares scheme is to be operated effectively, some of the people collecting penalty fares on trains will collect a considerable amount. If they collect a considerable amount, they have every reason, as a result of the way in which the London Underground has developed, to feel that they may be subject to attack and they can ask legitimately for protection. I believe that the unions have asked for negotiations and for assurances that people collecting penalty fares will be properly protected, but they have not been given those assurances. London Regional Transport, as it is now constituted, feels that it can take no notice of anyone who has a problem and that it can simply push the Bill through the House of Commons with phoney assurances and the hope that the payroll vote will carry the Bill through.
I suggest to London Regional Transport that it should tackle the problem of non-payment differently. It ought to abandon the Bill and put its own house in order. Once it has done that, it can then make a true assessment of how far there is really a major loss of revenue as a result of people not paying their fares.
London Regional Transport should deal first with the question of the morale of people who work on the Underground. I have spoken to two or three people who have been instructed to operate the new gates and their morale has deteriorated further because they have received many complaints and much hassle from the general public, who are upset about them. The total failure to treat reasonably the people working on the stations, issuing tickets and collecting fares, has led to much indifference among those people. A reasonable employer would have considered staff morale first. I am sure that if London Regional Transport had done something to raise the morale of those who issue and collect the tickets on the stations, the number of people not paying fares would have reduced dramatically.
London Regional Transport should also consider passenger morale. As long as passengers feel that London Regional Transport cares very little for them and is simply concerned to make a profit out of them rather than to provide a service, they will feel that they can take it out on London Regional Transport by not paying their fares. Unfortunately, in the end they do not take it out on London Regional Transport; they take it out on other farepayers because either the service deteriorates or the other farepayers have to increase their contributions.
I am certain that if LRT were running a service of which Londoners and the country as a whole could be proud in our capital, there would be a great deal less fare evasion. People would be much happier to pay if they thought that they were getting a good service and good value for money and if they saw that the money that they were paying was being invested to improve the quality of the service and that it was not being used for draconian measures to stop people avoiding paying their fares.
It might solve some of the problems if London Regional Transport also considered the fare structure and the ticket system. It is clear that the multiplicity of tickets is one of the problems. The introduction of the new automatic barriers and their failure to adjust to all the tickets has caused a great deal of difficulty. One would have thought that since London Regional Transport was planning to introduce those barriers it might have been sensible to adapt the tickets so that they could all be used in the barriers before the barriers were introduced rather than afterwards. If hon. Members visit the Thomas Cook transport office in the House, they will find that the tickets issued for hon. Members wishing to go to Heathrow cannot be used in the machines. If London Regional Transport cannot get simple things like that right, one must question its competence to run the service at all. The ticket system and the complexity of the fares clearly add to the difficulties because other European countries with simpler fare structures have a much lower incidence of fares evasion.
London Regional Transport could legitimately have adopted one of two approaches. It could either have encouraged passengers to pay by having tickets checked on the trains, or it could have checked tickets at station exits. Tomorrow night the House will be debating the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill. At least British Rail seems to have found a logical solution. It has said, "Let's improve the service to passengers by having free exit from stations with no checks on people entering and leaving the stations. Instead, let's have a system of travelling ticket collectors to check on-train whether the passengers have tickets. Let's then ask for a penalty fare system for those travelling without tickets." That seems a perfectly logical proposal, but London Regional Transport has gone for another approach. It wants a system of penalty fares and travelling ticket collectors, with all the hassle that that will involve on the trains for both the individual passengers and the collectors, and it also wants to take the draconian step of imposing these barriers.
Anyone who has travelled via Westminster station and the other stations where the barrier system is fully implemented can see for themselves the chaos that has been caused. Any train arriving at Westminster from about 8 o'clock in the morning until about 10 o'clock at night produces a substantial number of people. When they come up the steps, they are faced with one barrier that does not work very well and with about three others through which they can pass. When the passengers push their tickets through, some get through the barriers successfully but others get halfway through when the doors come back on them. It can be quite unpleasant when the doors bang against the person. Those people who have tickets without a magnetic strip have to ask one of the station staff standing by the barrier to operate it as though the ticket had a magnetic strip. Those people who find it difficult to pass through the barriers have to ask one of the station operatives to open them.
If someone is built like the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith), it might not be difficult to ask the person at the ticket barrier whether he or she would mind opening the gate because if one is the hon. Member for Rochdale, it is fairly obvious that one will not get through the barriers. However, I find it undignified that anyone who is sufficiently large as to find it uncomfortable to go through the barrier should have to ask a gate operative to let him through. We now discover from the hon. Member for Ilford, South that people do not have a right to go through an open gate. Someone pushing a pram will be allowed through and, at the discretion of London Underground, those of a large size might be allowed to go through.
If an individual asks to be allowed through the gate, and shows a valid ticket, I should have thought that at the very least that person should be allowed through. However, London Underground is not prepared to do that because if everybody who asked to walk through were allowed to do so it would become clear that about 95 per cent. of passengers would prefer to go through the gates rather than through the barriers. London Underground is trying to intimidate people. It is certainly humiliating one group of people.
I am sure that most hon. Members can think of people who are rather large and who are not too happy about the fact. Such people will not want to have to ask someone operating the barrier for permission to go through the gates simply because of their size. Pregnant women might also be unhappy about going through the gates, with the chance that, because of the way in which they malfunction, the gate doors will come back on them as they are passing through.
It is unreasonable that any of those individuals should have to explain to a station operative the reason why they do not want to go through the barriers. It is completely unacceptable in a civilised society. It would have been far better if London Underground had accepted that, if it wanted to impose the barriers, as at Westminster, it should at least have given every individual the absolute right to go through a gate rather than through one of the barriers if those individuals do not wish to do so.
From my own observations of the Underground at Euston and at other stations, and from my observations yesterday when London Underground showed me the system, I have noticed that at most stations the system is working reasonably well in that the barriers are there but there is an alternative and people can walk past them at the side. The majority of passengers are choosing to walk through the open gate. The slight reduction in the flow from allowing people to go through the barriers only if they want to do so means that the station operatives can carry out efficient physical checks on the tickets. When I watched what was happening at Victoria station the other morning in the company of people from London Regional Transport, there seemed little evidence of people avoiding paying their fares by passing through the open gate. My observations at Notting Hill and Euston stations reinforce my belief that people are showing valid tickets.
It is a little odd for London Regional Transport to say that it is difficult for the people in the traditional ticket offices to stop and check someone showing a wrong ticket because it is London Regional Transport that has put those people in those little huts. Obviously, it is difficult for them to get out and to try to apprehend somebody who

has offered a wrong ticket. If that member of the station staff were not standing in a hut the position would be much more reasonable.
Until London Regional Transport can provide an efficient service that is not disrupted as a result of industrial action, until it can improve the safety and the cleanliness of the Underground, and until it can sort out the appalling mess created by the introduction of the barriers, the House should not allow the Bill to proceed and should insist that undertakings given in the House are adhered to.

8 pm

Mr. Cohen: I, too, believe that we should not proceed further with the Bill tonight. I know that a number of clauses and amendments are before the House. I shall try not to stray on to those but hope to catch your eye. Mr. Deputy Speaker, later, especially on new clauses 1 and 2, dealing with industrial action.
New clause 1 says:
No penalty fare scheme shall apply on any day when the operations of the Corporation are subject to industrial action.
That would strike me as a sensible clause, because we all know the chaos that can arise during industrial action.
New clause 2 says:
No penalty fare scheme may apply to any station where there is not a readily available alternative exit or entrance to the automatic barriers.
I am especially keen to discuss those two clauses. However, we are only debating whether the Bill should again be considered by the House. I do not think that it should, because of the whole business of the assurances that we were given at Second Reading. I spoke in that debate and pointed out the great public unrest about the automatic ticket barriers. I mentioned a number of categories of people who had problems going through the barriers. It was not just women with prams, but pensioners, women with children, whether or not they had prams, who found it difficult to see their children through the barriers and would rather have the freer access, pregnant women and people with luggage.
I mentioned too, the problem of congestion and the fact that the barriers cause even greater queues. There is a serious problem of overcrowding on the Underground anyway. Because London Regional Transport has implemented the Government's policy of forcing fares up, season tickets are very expensive and people are not happy to put them into the barrier and risk losing them.
I draw to the House's attention a letter that was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) by his constituent, a Ms. S. P. Barnard. She said:
Dear Mr. Smith,
I wish to bring to your attention yet another hazard of travelling by underground. Last Tuesday lunchtime I was returning to work from visiting Waterloo station and on leaving the Northern line ticket gates my travel-card was stolen.
I was in a hurry and as usual there was a backlog of passengers trying to get out of those death-trap gates. I put my card in after the person in front of me and one card popped up and the man in front took it. I stood there waiting for mine and of course it was too late to do anything when I realised what had happened.
He'd taken mine and his single yellow ticket was in the machine. At first I'd thought my ticket was stuck and after some reluctance, the staff on duty checked the collection box, to no avail. Then they admitted it now happened quite often with these new gates. I was very angry, as you can imagine.


After being given the run around about who to see for a refund. L.T. have promised to re-imburse all the tickets I need to buy between now and when it was due to run out, (The following Monday).
But what I think should now be done, is that passengers be made aware of the fact that this is a new crime to be aware of when travelling by tube. And not have all the hassle I've had. Why hasn't this crime already been publicised?
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury immediately wrote to LRT to take up that matter. The barriers were supposed to reduce crime, but this is a new crime arising from their installation.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The problem is that one cannot be certain whether it is deliberate or accidental. The worst of it is that it will be very difficult to prosecute a person, because one must prove that that individual did not think that it was his ticket coming back. It makes it a most difficult crime to pursue. It is extremely worrying that it will be a growing crime in London.

Mr. Cohen: That is right. It would be virtually impossible to prove it if the person who ended up with the ticket denied that he had stolen it and insisted that it was a mistake. That is a new point, but season tickets were considered at Second Reading. It was in the context of people being worried to put their tickets in the machine for fear of losing them. Pressure was put on for passengers to have freedom of choice in the use of the barriers or the manual gate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said:
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there will always be an alternative to using the mechanical ticket barriers?
The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), on behalf of the promoters said:
The intention is that there will always be that option available."—[Official Report, 6 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 762.
The hon. Gentleman was unequivocal about that. However, for the first time today we have heard the hon. Gentleman saying that that only applies to women with prams, which was not the view gained by the House when it gave its approval for the Bill to proceed at Second Reading.
If hon. Members had realised that the choice was being taken away from travellers in that blunt manner, I am not sure that they would have given the Bill a Second Reading. After all, I have stood at elections where the Conservative party kept telling the electorate that it is the party of choice. To be fair to Conservative Members, I believe that many of them are honourable. They actually believe that they are the party of choice, although all the time they are taking money and public services away from people, which reduces choice. They are putting a burden on the people as opposed to giving them choice. I believe that many Conservative Members are in favour of giving people choice and, if they had known that choice was being taken away, I wonder whether they would have been so keen to go through the Lobby.

Dr. Marek: Will my hon. Friend give his opinion on the system used on the Tyne and Wear Metro, where there are turnstiles, but there are no automatic ticket barriers or controls? There is free exit and entry to the Metro, but there is an efficient on-train ad hoc ticket inspection system. Does he feel that the Bill is going about the

problem of evasion in the wrong way and that perhaps a system such as that established on the Tyne and Wear metro might be preferable?

Mr. Cohen: That is right. There should be that choice available. By all means let London Transport have efficient systems for people to get in and out of the stations, if people are prepared to use them, but there should be a choice. London Regional Transport is going about it the wrong way and has not learnt lessons from the Tyne and Wear Metro and other systems around the world which have sensible systems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned that on 5 June at Westminster station the choice to use the barriers or not had been taken away. On 2 June at Euston station staff were brought together almost like a would-be police force to man the ticket barriers and to force passengers to use them, giving them no choice. It is ironic that the staff should be used in that way, because barriers were brought in to cut the number of staff required. It is like the staff being asked to dig their own graves or sign their own redundancy notices. About 12 staff were sent down to the barriers and they stopped everybody and said, "You must use the barriers, you cannot use the manual barrier." That is what happened at Euston on 2 June between 6 and 7 o'clock at night. I had cause to complain to LRT about that.
One respectable passenger—I can vouch for her respectability as she is chairman of the Leyton Labour party—was passing through Euston and she told the staff that she wanted to use the manual barrier. That was a reasonable request, but she was stopped from doing so. The staff demanded of her the reason for her request. She told them that she felt safer and more comfortable going through that manual barrier, but they told her that that was not good enough. The staff told her that if she were disabled they would allow her to go through. Later in their discussions, however, it came out that the disabled are not allowed to travel on the Underground unless they have obtained permission in the first place. I shall be asking questions about that. Clearly the disabled are faced with a Catch-22 situation. LRT has forced the use of the automatic barriers by dismissing every reason suggested for not using them. It has taken away passengers' choice.
I do not believe that we should consider the Bill, as LRT has got its priorities wrong by spending so much money on promoting it. I came across a cutting this week from the publication of the London Hazards Centre, "The Daily Hazard", which said:
In 1987 we reported on the absurd similarity between the penalties imposed for fare dodging on London Underground and the average fine for employers whose negligence causes the death of a worker—both around £400.
We all know that, increasingly, the safety of LRT is at risk. LRT's priority should be to ensure that safety is improved and it should provide a compensation scheme for accidents to its staff. There should be more important priorities than fare dodgers.
Nobody supports people who dodge paying their fares, which is a criminal offence, but it appears that LRT has got its priorities wrong. About 300 British Transport police operate on LRT and they are immensely overstretched because of crimes of all kinds, particularly serious crimes of violence. Often the police are not on hand to deal with such crimes, because there are not enough of them.
I have chased up the Minister to find out the cost of the barriers, but I have been given some evasive answers. Originally the Minister told me that they cost £22 million, but I am now told that various items relating to the computers were not included in that cost. I am now told that it is LRT's responsibility to say how much the barriers cost. I am still awaiting that information from LRT although the national press has reported that the cost is in the region of £165 million. That money would have provided 550 British Transport police for 10 years. Rather than waste any more money on the Bill, that money should be spent on the transport police so that fare dodgers and other more violent criminals on the Tube are caught.
8.15 pm
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish that money should be spent on making the stations spick and span and a pleasure to visit. If people consider that the transport system is cheap, squalid and nasty they will try to evade paying for it. To clean up the existing squalor would be an incentive to people to pay their fares. The money should also be spent on staffing for the benefit of passengers and the service. It would have been far better if LRT had made safety its priority instead of the nonsense of a Bill before us.
I have studied the statement given by the promoters of the Bill and it does not refer to the trade unions being consulted. The trade unionists, however, are the front line in fare collection. They have not been consulted, but it is they who face violence if they confront someone on the tube and say that that person has not paid his fare.

Dr. Marek: I am a Member sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen and, as far as I am aware, that union has not been consulted by LRT on any aspect of the Bill, even though it intimated to the management of LRT its worries about attacks on the staff. That is why the Bill is unsatisfactory.

Mr. Cohen: Yes, it is my understanding that the trade unions have not been consulted.
If such penalty fare collection is to become part of the job of the staff, one would think that, at the very least, they would receive additional pay, hut, in its statement, LRT has not said that it is prepared to pay staff more for their extra onerous task. That is not surpising, as we are already in the middle of industrial action because of the meanness of LRT. It has sought to impose the Government's wage-cut policy on its staff. We all know that the current dispute has been caused because LRT has only offered its staff 7 per cent. while inflation is 8 per cent. and rising. That wage offer is on top of the staff reductions that have been faced year after year and the worsening conditions under which staff must work. Many guards have been taken off trains so the other staff must now take the blame if anything goes wrong, but they receive nothing extra for that.
The workers' industrial action is justified and they have common cause with the passengers who have suffered from worsening conditions and increasing risks to safety. We should support the workers of LRT and put pressure on the Government to settle their justifiable claim so that they receive wages for their onerous extra tasks. Those staff will have to collect the penalty fares and they will undoubtedly risk violence, but the mean LRT board has not offered them a penny for doing so.
The House will recall that the chairman of LRT has described the strike action as "ungodly", but that term can also be used to describe LRT. The LRT management is trying to screw down the workers without paying them properly for their onerous extra tasks and it has caused passengers to suffer because of the increasingly squalid conditions. That management policy can only be described as "ungodly". The House should not agree to such a policy, especially as there has been no consultaion with the trade unions. There has also been no consultation with hon. Members.
When we discussed the Bill in the last Session I raised the problem of the possibility of violence to staff. I said then that I had not been consulted and that nobody from LRT had talked to me, a London Member of Parliament. From that day to this, nobody from LRT has told me about the proposals and the fact that they may lead to violence on staff.

Dr. Marek: It would be extremely useful if my hon. Friend would agree that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) should seek to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye so that he can explain these matters, rather than the Opposition talking in a vacuum without knowing exactly what is taking place behind the scenes. The hon. Member for Ilford, South may be able to assure us on some of these points and confirm where the division lies between those of us who have caveats about the Bill going ahead and those of us who do not.

Mr. Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am about to conclude my remarks to give the hon. Member for Ilford, South that opportunity.
I have given a number of reasons for opposing the Bill: the public, hon. Members and trade unions have not been consulted; there is the problem of the barriers; and LRT has the wrong priorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said that when the GLC controlled public transport in London it acted as a democratic channel so that the public could be involved. Now, they are not involved at all. We should consider that factor.
The Bill, like the ticket barriers, is an enormous waste of money and the time of the House, particularly when we bear in mind the real problems facing the Underground. I shall be interested to hear how the hon. Member for Ilford, South can justify the inaction of LRT in those circumstances. I have given a powerful set of reasons why we should abandon the Bill.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am sure that in a few moments the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will take up the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).
It is a happy accident that the three London Members come from east London because public transport there is even more important to ordinary people than it is in other parts of the conurbation. That is not surprising because car ownership in our boroughs—Walthamstow, Newham and, possibly, Redbridge—may be lower than elsewhere.
It is also a happy accident that the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Ilford, South, and I served on the traffic and transport committee of the Greater London council. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in these matters and has a practical grasp of them. I hope that he will concede, even if he does not always agree with me, that I also try to have a practical grasp of them.
It is an anomaly that, due to the excellence of the private Bill procedure of this House, which permits us to consider on the Floor of the House whether a Bill should go further after being in Committee, this Bill is being debated at a proper time and in a proper way, whereas the Government denied the House the opportunity even to discuss the proposals considered at Madrid last week. It is a democratic anomaly which puts the Government in a poor light.
It is also due to the Government's actions that hon. Members present this evening, and no less a person than the Minister of State, Department of Transport, are dealing with a subject that should be considered in the GLC county hall across the river. As I think the hon. Member for Ilford, South would agree, this is the sort of issue which was dealt with in a morning's Committee meeting, or maybe over a series of several meetings months, perhaps, after informal presentations from officers of London Regional Transport, questions from committee members and other members of the Greater London Council.
The sort of problems involving barriers and the practicalities of penalty fares, which have been described by my hon. Friend, were dealt with by representatives of London in county hall in a way which did not impinge upon the legislature of the nation. It is extraordinary that we have to bring the Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) to the Front Bench in the national legislature to talk about practical and important matters relating to London Regional Transport. I am glad that we have the opportunity to do so but I wish that it could be done in county hall, where it should be, and that the time of the House was not being taken up with this matter tonight. However, we have no alternative, so my remarks tonight will be similar to those which I might have made had I been sitting in that committee as I did 20 years ago.
Is this Bill necessary? I would question LRT officials if they brought such proposals before a committee in county hall. The claim is that London Regional Transport is losing up to £26 million a year through fare evasion. I accede that it may be losing money and the matter may have been dealt with on Second Reading. I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will tell us the basis of that calculation.
If the barriers and the new ticket system are as good as London Regional Transport has claimed, will the loss be reduced by that system—partially effective and offensive though it may be? One would have thought that if LRT were losing that amount of money, the electronic system which it installed would be designed to reduce it without recourse to legislation. Therefore, what is the necessity for the Bill, as well as the barriers? Must we have both? Apparently, both London Regional Transport and the Government say that we should. As a representative of the citizens of London and of the legislators here, I do not see why we should. If the barriers did their job, we would not need the Bill. This matter should be explained.
We also need an explanation of the interpretation of the word "penalty". We are soon to have a different sort of penalty fare in London: penalty fares for those who want to travel at peak times. The Government have endorsed that principle. The Prime Minister, from the very seat in

which the Minister of State is now sitting, endorsed that principle when asked a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton only 10 days ago. She said that travellers would have to pay more at peak times to pay for better services in general. However, those who pay peak fares will not receive better services, and we object to that.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that the introduction of such penalties for people who travel at peak times will cause resentment? That is the sort of thing which motivates people to take out their resentment on the system, either by defacing stations or by trying to cheat on tickets. If the Government behaved in a responsible way and carried the travelling public with them they could do a great deal to encourage people to look after property and dissuade them from trying to evade fares.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend makes an important point, particularly in relation to incipient violence—I am not talking about theft. People's attitude to the transport system is to ask whether it is user-friendly, designed for their convenience and delight or to oppress them. That is an important psychological factor.
I was brought up in the middle and late 1930s when London Regional Transport was a delight to the eye and an exemplar throughout the world of good transport management. That is not so today. The existence of penal fares at peak hours, or penalty fares for alleged fare dodging, will tighten that psychological screw. That is another reason why I ask: should we have this Bill? If London Regional Transport is going to apply penalty fares at peak hours, should we let them have this Bill as part of the general package? We do not have much control over that because the Secretary of State has taken statutory powers relating to the fares structure of London Regional Transport. However, at least the House and representatives of London have some powers over this miserable piece of legislation.

Mr. Cohen: Has my hon. Friend thought about one of the implications of the Government's policy of loading extra fares on people who travel at peak times—the effect on the cost of living index? The increase in fares will be absorbed in the prices index as only a small rise, but this will be an enormous extra burden on people who use the system to travel in peak times, and that will be reflected in their pay claims. The Government will then say that the prices index has risen by only a little and ask these people why they are claiming a great deal more. Is not that a recipe for trouble?

Mr. Spearing: Indeed. It is penal in the broadest sense. The original instruction that the former Secretary of State for Transport gave LRT was that fares should generally rise in relation to the cost of living index. That policy has now changed because they rose last time by 12 per cent., roughly double the general increase in prices. We do not know the size of the increase being planned by LRT now. Perhaps the Secretary of State will not agree to it, although recently Mr. Wilfrid Newton told London Labour Members of Parliament in reply to my question about whether the principle had been agreed and it was now merely a matter of method, amount and timing, that that


was exactly so. I hope that he was wrong. The Minister of State is also a London Member; I hope that he and the Secretary of State will not permit these penal fares.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton said, public transport costs in London are already leaping ahead of inflation, which itself is too high, and that is inflationary. The Government claim that they believe in fighting inflation, yet they produce it by doubling LRT fares.
In the middle of the last century, the heyday of Victorian probity and enterprise, Parliament in its wisdom laid down t he maximum fares for private railway companies. LRT is still a public transport concern—we have not yet privatised it and I hope that we never shall. Although the railway companies may have run only one train a day at these fares, it was called the parliamentary train because there was a maximum fare. Are the Government going back on that relatively enlightened Victorian policy? I suggest that their public transport policy shows that they are.
Will these proposals stop evasion? For the past few moments I may have spoken controversially, but I shall now revert to what I might have said in a county hall committee. We all have a vested interest in stopping fare evasion even if we disagree with the fare structure. The psychology of LRT's anti-fare-dodging measures is not right. Recently LRT produced machines that authorise people to travel, but I am not sure that they are in operation everywhere. If there is no ticket man at a station — I do not blame the staff for that: there are severe shortages—we press a button and receive authority to travel. At our destination, the ticket collectors know where we got on. This good idea has only just been introduced and I do not know whether it is yet fully effective. I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will tell us whether it is. Properly used, the system could cut down some evasion.
The chance of detection also cuts down evasion, as we all know from experience of other areas. The Post Office is a past master of this game. It sends a little van with a revolving aerial around the streets. It does not matter what is inside the van—there might just be a man turning a handle. What matters is that in the next two days people queue up at the Post Office to pay their telly licenses. That is a cost-effective form of ensuring that people do not evade their responsibilities. I have detected nothing like it on London Underground—quite the reverse.
We have argued before that there must be more staff on the platforms and stations. This is one of the reasons why the motormen are going on strike. They know that Government policy is going in the opposite direction of public opinion, and no wonder they get wild and annoyed. As a result the atmosphere is soured and industrial action takes place. There must be more people to check up. The possibility of detection will ensure that people pay their fares or carry the right pass.
I must confess to having been stopped by inspectors on LRT three times in the past year. Curiously enough, it always happened on a Sunday morning. I have only once seen someone checking tickets on a train on a weekday. Inspectors should check tickets at the big interchange stations, just as we pick up people going through Customs. A spot check is cost-effective, time-effective and person power-effective. Under the present system, people on the Underground do not know whether they will be stopped.
I have with me my London Regional Transport pass for three zones. When they were first introduced, the passess

showed large numbers which could be easily read. Inspectors or conductors could see at a glance whether the pass holder was eligible to travel. The new passes need fairly close scrutiny to determine the zones. That does not inspire me with confidence in the management, although there may be an explanation for it. The poor chap driving the bus or at the ticket barrier would have to be very good to read the zone numbers. Employees of LRT say that one of their problems is that the new pass is not easily inspected. It is difficult for them if they have to stop people for a while to read the pass, because passengers get annoyed.
Last Sunday week I was on a bus and showed my pass, whereupon I was told that I was out of my zone. I said that the zone had been zone 3 last year, but I was told that the zones had now changed and the one I was in was zone 3a. The conductor told me that the zones had changed last December, so I paid up, and fair enough—up to a point. Confusion in the system does not give people confidence. I have had a complaint from Beckton in my constituency, which contains many new people and houses. The train station, North Woolwich, is in zone 3, but to judge from the boundaries the area is zone 4 for buses. I have written to LRT about this anomaly and no doubt it will provide a curious explanation.
This sort of thing helps neither the passengers nor the poor staff. If they do their job, they get the kickback from the customer; if they do not do their job, under the present management of London Regional Transport, which is pretty tight on some people, they may be jumped on by a spot—someone in plain clothes—for not doing their job. So the poor old lady or gent who is operating the bus is squeezed. Those are the problems in industrial relations today.

Dr. Marek: I deplore as much as my hon. Friend does the system of different zones and different fares. I wonder whether it is all part of a plan to destabilise a simple, straightforward fare system in London so that the structure may be amenable to privatisation in the unlikely event that the Tory party wins the next election.

Mr. Spearing: I hope not. I have a reputation for seeing under stones things that are not there. My hon. Friend's thesis may be true but I fear that the problems are caused by inefficiency, lack of imagination and an inability to see things from the point of view of the passengers, who happen to be the owners. We talk about customers but the citizens of London are not just customers of London Underground Ltd. or of London Buses; they are the owners. The Minister is not the owner.
Bus passes do not apply universally as they used to. Under the Transport Act 1985 the traffic commissioners gave permission for minibuses to run through east London; they do not accept passes, including pensioners' passes. We are beginning to see the break-up of the system. I do not think that the administrative cock-up over zones was deliberate but Government policy on pensioners not being allowed to travel free on certain minibuses is deliberate and is part of the scheme for privatisation. Therefore, old-age pensioners are penalised. If the break-up of the bus system does not allow for universal ticketing, there is discrimination and people are penalised in terms of convenience if not on fares.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): If the hon. Gentleman's thesis were correct, why


would I have written to the London boroughs concerned to ask them to extend concessionary fares to privately operated minibuses?

Mr. Spearing: I am glad that the Minister asked that question. Being a relatively new Member, perhaps he does not remember the history of concessionary fares in London. Originally, London boroughs decided whether to give passes to their residents. Some did, mainly the Labour boroughs, and some did not. There was an outcry thoughout London, with people saying that it was ridiculous that concessionary fares depended on which side of the road someone lived or on which party was in the majority in a borough; everyone demanded that concessionary fares should be issued Londonwide. It may be news to Government Members that that was not the case originally. The responsibility was transferred from the London boroughs to the Greater London council, which was established by the Conservative party as a strategic transport and planning authority for London, and pensioner passes were applicable throughout London.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right; the Greater London council was established by the Tory party but I remind him that concessionary fares were established by a Labour GLC.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out, but the fares could not have applied on an all-London basis without the existence of a body that was strategically necessary for transport and planning, something that the Government denied subsequently. We wanted concessionary fares to remain on an all-London basis but the Conservative party has now produced the anomaly, as the Minister admitted. Route D16 runs through Tower Hamlets and Newham. Does the Minister expect Newham council to provide concessionary fares while others do not?

Mr. Cryer: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the Minister's intervention was interesting and revealing. No announcement has been made about the secret letters that the Minister has been touting round London. The Minister has been trying to remedy in secret the damage that the legislation abolishing the GLC achieved in public. The Government are trying to remedy the very policies that the GLC was carrying out amicably until a group of extreme Right wingers tabled a clause to abolish the GLC.

Mr. Spearing: I agree with my hon. Friend. The position is even worse. Because the Government abolished the GLC for all the wrong reasons—we now see the results in the transport and traffic chaos in London—we have a patchwork system. The minibuses which the Government have encouraged and which are outside the remit of London Buses—probably the public do not know that —have to apply to individual boroughs, as the Minister has admitted, if they want pensioners' passes. That is ridiculous. The Minister is encouraging boroughs which suffer from an unfair rate system to remedy an anomaly that the Government created. That is yet another example of the fares and transport chaos in London.
Whatever the need for dealing with fare dodgers, this penalty fares Bill is ill-fitted for the job. It should be

drafted in a way that satisfies the psychology and pride of the people of London, the well-being of those who work on the system and, above all, those who use it daily to travel to work.

Mr. Cryer: It is a pleasure to say a few words on the Bill. I am particularly interested in the statement that the promoters circulated to hon. Members. It sets out the origination of the Bill which was a report of a working group of officials from the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, London Regional Transport and the Department of Transport.
The group was considering the principles that should apply to a penalty fares scheme on public transport. Unfortunately the report is not in the Vote Office or we could have had ready reference to it. The Library is obtaining a copy for me. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has a copy. I sought information from the Vote Office. Unfortunately the promoters have not arranged for copies of the report to be in the Vote Office. The Vote Office tells me it may be several days before it can get copies.

Mr. Peter Snape: I fear that inadvertently I may have caused the problem. Like my hon. Friend, I read the promoters' statement. I went first to the Vote Office, as he did, and then to the Library to find out whether the report was available. The Library staff kindly and efficiently produced the report for me. Alas, it is the only one available in the building. That explains why my hon. Friend is subject to delay in its provision.

Mr. Cryer: That shows that the promoters have not been as assiduous as they might have been in providing hon. Members with information.
I was interested to note that the Bill started off with a working group of officials. Officials are not elected, directly or indirectly. They are appointees within the Civil Service career structure and it might be argued that they are not the most democratically minded individuals.
I looked again at the promoters' statement to see whether there were, for example, representatives of the people who operate services and who turn out at 4 or 5 in the morning, go down, open the trains, get on the stations, rather than dealing with high quality decisions with cups of Civil Service tea to hand in comfortable rooms with furniture that is well upholstered, like some members of the working party. I cannot see that any representatives of the workers who operate the railway system or the buses —those who start up the Routemasters at 4·30 am, get out the ticket machines and start the gritty business of meeting the travelling public in the morning and late at night—were involved.
The lack of such people in the working party is a matter of regret. Paragraph 7 in the promoters' statement says:
The Bill has the support of the Department of Transport and there has been consultation with the Unions representing those who would have to implement the penalty fares scheme.
I am interested to know—I am sure that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will tell us—the result of those consultations. I wonder why the promoters are so shy about it. Perhaps the result was glorious and the trade union representatives fell on the necks of the administrators of the scheme and said, "What a wonderful idea. We like meeting angry people in crowded trains to try to impose penalty fares, and this is a challenge." That is the sort of gobbledegook yuppie language that the


Government so often use in such circumstances. If that had happened, I should have thought that it would be included in the statement. If it had happened but the promoters had not included it, they would have been remiss. No doubt the hon. Member for Ilford, South will reveal all to us in due course.

Dr. Marek: I do not think that there have been consultations. There certainly were none with the NUR. I am aware of what the promoters' statement says. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is refusing to explain these things to us. Would it not have been better if these things had been explained to us in advance?

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. The sentence
The Bill has the support of the Department of Transport and there has been consultation with the Unions representing those who would have to implement the penalty fares scheme
requires some elucidation. It could refer to those who are to be on the trains, who will have to say to people on a crowded tube train in the morning, "You've not got your ticket and I want a penalty fare, chum"—the conversation that would ensue would be interesting and possibly difficult. It could refer to the people who get the paperwork from the people on the trains, implement it, and record the penalty fare payments, docket them and transfer them to the accounting department. It is not clear, and there would be a difference of view between those two unions.
I suspect that the people who go on the trains to collect the penalty fares do not view the task with relish. I suspect that those who merely administer the scheme would do it simply as another administrative exercise. After all, they are nicely insulated from the public, who will be protesting their innocence and so on. It is possible that that statement covers administrators but not the people who carry out the scheme. I am eagerly anticipating the explanation of the hon. Member for Ilford, South about why that elliptical sentence is included in the statement.
It is a matter of deep regret that the Government chose not to involve the people who are running the services in helping to draw up the scheme. It is an unfortunate characteristic of our society that the people who work, day in day out, at something and spend their lives working to provide a service—in this case, transport—are so rarely consulted on how it should be run. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East has many years' experience of the railways and knows that that is the case. Those who operate the service are always the last to be consulted about changes that affect the operation that they are running.
The promoters should be aware that 99x2014;9 per cent. of those who operate the services have an affection for them, a devotion to the cause of providing a service, an ability and talent to do so and a contribution to make. I am afraid that one of the adversities that we face is a hierarchical system. People appointed by the Secretary of State produce a report in insulated offices in Whitehall and then hand it on to be imposed on the people who are working the system to ensure that it provides a service, and often to cover up the deficiencies of management.
One of the reasons why there is industrial action today is that there has not been adequate consultation because there is a belief in the noxious phrase that the management must manage. That means that management must be able to impose its views on the work force, whatever the views of the majority, and those who do the routine tasks are always the majority. That is not an adequate way to work

any system, whether it is a transport system, a factory or anything else. Jimmy Knapp, the NUR leadership and ASLEF are demonstrating that they will not have their negotiating rights trampled on by an arrogant management elite and that they want meaningful consultation rights, and wage negotiations, and decent working conditions negotiated under a proper, democratic and humane system. That is what the argument is about, and it is reflected in an interesting way in the Bill and the statement on behalf of the promoters in support of consideration of the Bill.
The system about which we are talking was imposed from on high—if we consider administrative rooms in Whitehall as being on high. Some people would refer to the ideas they produce as coming from the bowels of the earth. That is the origin of this legislation, so it has some deficiencies. The basic one is that, like all management people, they see their task as "increasing efficiency", which to them means getting rid of people. People are our national asset. They have the ability and the talent to design, to improve and to give value, yet they are the very people that the working party decided should be removed and ticket machines put in their place. There are a number of severe disadvantages in that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned the breach of faith by the hon. Member for Ilford, South. As will be clear in Hansard, an assurance was given that there would be some access to platforms without having to pass through ticket barriers. Those of us who use London Regional Transport know that that is not the case. When the ticket machines were first installed a gate was always left open, but that usually does not happen now. Quite often all the barriers are in operation and there is no alternative to passing through those barriers. That is very difficult for people with children, prams, pushchairs or baggage.
There used to be porters at railway stations, but now, other than at major mainline stations, they have disappeared from the face of the earth. However, there are still ticket collectors and they can give assistance and advice. The change machines do not always work. In my experience the machines that require exact fares work more often than those that give change. That is another inconvenience for travellers. People working at stations can give advice about fares, travel, connections and so on, but the report ignores all that.

9 pm

Dr. Marek: I do not know how the machines work, but I suspect that they are all of the same type. When a machine does not have enough change, the light-emitting diode on top of the machine will change to "exact fare only". My experience is that most machines, and certainly those at Euston, say "exact fare only". It is lucky to find a machine that gives change. We would have more confidence in LRT if it could assure us that all its machines and barriers would be foolproof. If experience of current machines is anything to go by, they are inadequate—indeed, anything that LRT does appears to be inadequate in some way.

Mr. Cryer: The machines will have to be extremely robust. They have been installed and in general use for only a few weeks. There may have been pilot projects, but I have not seen one. With the vast range of LRT stations, it is possible that there has been a pilot project somewhere.


The machines must withstand one of the most intensive underground systems in the world, so their margin of safety must be very great if they are to survive the onslaught of such massive use. Like my hon. Friends, I have my reservations about the safety of ticket barriers. If a fire breaks out, such as the tragic and horrible incident at King's Cross, the barriers need to be removed rapidly. The machines and barriers physically reduce the amount of space available for people to get out in an emergency. There is only a matter of seconds, perhaps 120 to 180, to evacuate people from a station.
The fire at King's Cross started at the bottom of an escalator, which acted as a chimney. The draught of air flowing through that chimney rapidly spread the fire. The barriers had to be opened rapidly to allow the people to get out. I wonder whether the new ticket barriers can be rapidly opened or whether they will impede evacuation. King's Cross now has monitors and video cameras surveying the whole of the ticket area. The station also has a central ticket cubicle that is, I suppose, manned while the station is open, as well as a ticket cubicle that is often staffed.
I imagine that London Transport keeps a continuing eye on King's Cross because of the seriousness of the fire that occurred there, which made it the focus of worldwide attention. But we must bear in mind every station, including those at the end of branch lines and which are used much less than King's Cross. I have not seen at those stations the same degree of video monitoring as is in evidence at King's Cross.
Provision must be made for the worst possible case, where there is no supervision and no ticket collectors. Nevertheless, I suppose that with the advent of the Bill, even the last vestiges of that staffing will disappear, and I have severe reservations about the substitution of staff by machines.
The report that started the current trend to automation was published before the King's Cross fire. It is clear that the Bill is a Government measure, one stage removed through London Regional Transport. My guess is that if the King's Cross fire had occurred when the working party report was being prepared, the Bill would not have been produced, the working party would have changed the principles on which it was founded, and the House would not have been required to consider such legislation. It concerns me that LRT is so obdurate and pig-headed that it is not prepared to take into account the lessons learnt from King's Cross and to defer any proposals for several years, until the situation is comprehensively understood.
It would be interesting to know from the hon. Member for Ilford, South whether there have been any pilot schemes to assess the reliability of the machinery involved. As I said, it will be subject to a great deal of use, and all machinery wears out. What provision is to be made—on the basis of experience that, of necessity, must be limited —for dismantling, maintaining and overhauling ticket barriers and other equipment? What are London Underground's plans? Will ticket barriers, for example, be removed for routine overhauls or will some be overhauled in situ? If the latter, they must inevitably be taken out of use, which will reduce access to and egress from stations —and egress is the most significant consideration in respect of accidents.
The principle on which the Bill is based will make it incumbent on London Transport to install ticket barriers at all stations so that staff can be concentrated on the trains, to collect penalty fares.
Once the Bill is enacted, there will no longer be an opportunity to raise questions. One may write a letter to the chairman of London Regional Transport, who is an appointee, and seek information, but it will not be possible to raise matters in public, in the way that we can now on the Floor of this House.
Health and safety hazards also give food for thought. The report of the working party produced in May 1986 was designed to get rid of ticket attendants. We should be told by the sponsor—who, I suspect, does not know—how many ticket attendants will be displaced and put on to trains to collect penalty fares, how many people will be made redundant and what additional maintenance requirement will be imposed on London Regional Transport for the ticket machines.
The maintenance task is likely to be enormous. Every station probably has half a dozen machines; multiplied by several hundred, that will pose a task of exceptional stringency. Every machine must be working if health and safety standards are to be maintained. If the machines are to be replaced to guarantee maximum access, a given number of machines must be kept in store, overhauled and maintained ready for immediate replacement. If the machines are to be repaired in situ, that is an entirely different matter: a potentially serious hazard will be posed to health and safety at work and to passenger safety, and we should be told about that as well.
The linking of public with private legislation has social implications. This is essentially a Government Bill; its origin was in the Government working party set up in 1986. Its report was approved by the Secretary of State, who then told London Transport and British Rail to go ahead. Meanwhile, the Government have introduced legislation which provides further hazards.
We know that since the present Government came to office in 1979 violence has increased. Inadequate street lighting caused by cuts in local authority expenditure has caused women to be worried about walking in the streets late at night. I know of no woman who would say that our city streets are safe at all times of day and night. Many women to whom I have spoken have mentioned their fear of walking in the city streets in the dark, especially late at night.
Let us suppose that a woman is going to her station and hears footfalls behind her. She must walk along a subway to reach the station: it is ill lit and covered with graffiti. The Elephant and Castle is a case in point. The subway could be seen as a dangerous area—I do not say that it is; I merely say that it could be. When she reaches the station, the woman may seek safety in the form of a ticket collector or cashier, and find that the station is deserted and devoid of fellow passengers.
There is a machine, but it requires the exact money, and she does not have the right change. That means that she cannot get on the train because a penalty fare is involved. So she turns back and sees the corridors behind her with potential danger lurking there.
9.15 pm
That woman might have been obliged to take night work because, by the Employment Bill, the Government have removed protection for women against working at


night. When a woman applies for a job and is offered night work, she may say, " I do not like night work because I am afraid of walking about late at night, and the shift finishes at 10 pm, when the streets are empty and stations are deserted. The buses do not run frequently because of cuts by the Conservative Government." The employer replies, "That is the job. Take it or leave it."
There may be no union at the factory to which the woman can appeal for aid and support, because the Government have been working against trade unions and they want to reduce union membership as much as possible. The woman goes to the Department of Employment saying that she turned the job down. "That is a superficial reason for turning the job down. You are not demonstrating that you are actively seeking work," the official at the Department replies. "I have been for a job," she says. The official says, "Yes, but you turned it down for reasons which do not sound good to us, so we are stopping your benefit under the new Social Security Act."
In other words, women are placed in peril by a combination of events, a third of which we are discussing tonight. It cannot be denied that Government legislation affects millions of women. The removal of protection against night work and the requirement actively to be seeking work are two of the events. The Bill—and British Rail penalty fare proposals on which I hope to speak tomorrow in the House—remove the friendly help and advice of staff at stations in our great city of London.
British Rail management hopes to take the same action at every station throughout the country, so these steps are of universal application. We are debating a measure applying only to LRT, but it is all part of a pattern by which women will become more vulnerable, although men, too, will suffer.
Even if not by design, and even though disparate Departments may he promulgating their own ideas, all this legislation links up. Even if there is no plan for a wholesale reduction in facilities, representing an attack on the standards of protection afforded to the work force, that is the effect of what is being done.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South should agree to halt further consideration of the measure. He should inform those involved that, in the light of circumstances in society, the Bill should be withdrawn and the whole principle enshrined in the 1986 report—of replacing people on stations with machines—reconsidered. People, rather than machines, should be retained.
Considering further the position of women at stations, imagine the plight of a woman with small children, one in a pushchair and the other a toddler. She has the problem of getting through the wretched automatic barriers. She must try to find somebody who can help her, and hope that somebody will be in evidence to come to her aid.
My guess is that late at night management will not be all that scrupulous about ensuring that staff are there to open locked gates. Before that lady reaches the gate she will have had to find the exact change for a ticket because the machine that gives change will have broken down and the sign "exact fare only" will he flashing on the screen. As a result of all the flurry and the difficulty she may go on to the train without a ticket. London Regional Transport officials will then say to her, "You haven't got a ticket, so you will have to pay a penalty fare." Meanwhile, her children will be tugging at her skirt. One will have fallen out of its pram and an ice cream will be slithering down the new dress of the toddler who is walking. The mother will

have to explain the circumstances to a railway official who, during his walk down the corridor of a crowded train, has had a bit of abuse from two or three people. It is most unsatisfactory.
No hon. Member would dispute that that could happen, yet this is the system that London Regional Transport considers an improvement. At the moment, a woman in that position can say to the ticket collector, "Can you help me with my pushchair?" and he will tell her, "Yes, I'll give you a hand." That happens day in, day out. That will disappear.
It will be a wretched system. It is objectionable that a group of highly placed people in Whitehall should have decided that this is good for people. I wonder how many mothers were members of the working party. Do those members take their children regularly on the Underground or on buses? I suspect that not many mothers were on the working party. How many of its members were trade unionists? According to the promoters' statement, it does not appear that any of them were trade unionists. Neither women with young children nor disabled people were represented on the working party which established this wretched principle that machines should be used instead of people.
The scheme is replete with difficulties for the travelling public. The elite who run London Regional Transport ought to pay more attention to the travelling public. My guess is that the elite—the management of London Regional Transport—are provided with chauffeur-driven cars. The Secretary of State for Transport who established the working group and, when it reported, gave his approval and authority for the scheme to go ahead, goes around in a chauffeur-driven car. He is not given a set of tickets or tokens for the Underground and asked to exchange them for tickets and, when he has time, to use them. I am not sure who is on the working group as they are not listed here.

Mr. Snape: Before my hon. Friend leases that interesting scenario of the Secretary of State travelling on London Underground, given the problems with the machines that my hon. Friend has outlined so graphically, would the right hon. Gentleman be capable of feeding a ticket into the right slot and making his way through the ticket barrier?

Mr. Cryer: My guess is that in order not to reveal his lack of knowledge of these machines, the Secretary of State would get his private secretary to go ahead and demonstrate that it was all right so that the photographers could make it appear that the Secretary of State for Transport knew what he was doing.
The Secretary of State for Transport has established a working group of officials. If the permanent secretary or a deputy secretary at the Department of Transport were involved, official cars would be available for their use. The permanent secretary will have an official car to take him from his residence to the Department and home again every day. That is a rather cosseted existence for the person who supervises the working group of officials. If all the officials on the working group were permanent secretaries—and I doubt that—they would all be cosseted in that way. We all know that the Secretary of State has a chauffeur-driven Rover. We all know that it is a big Rover for a Secretary of State, a lesser model, probably a Montego, for a Minister of State and a Mini for an


Under-Secretary. None the less, they all have chauffeurs. They are supervised by the Prime Minister, who has not set foot inside a railway carriage for years, and who likes to be driven around exclusively in her chauffeur-driven Jaguar.

Dr. Marek: I used to ask an annual question about whether the Prime Minister travelled by British Rail in her official duties. The answer always used to be no. However, two or three years ago the answer was yes. There had been one instance, and it may be that there has been another since then.

Mr. Cryer: Here we are examining whether the Prime Minister has been on a railway once or twice in the past five years.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Or down to Finchley on the tube.

Mr. Cryer: I suspect that she does not often go down to Finchley on the tube. Although strictly speaking she should not use the official car for going to Finchley on constituency journeys, my guess is that she fiddles it by arranging an official engagement just beyond Finchley each month so that she can get out, spend 20 minutes there and then get back into the official car and go on to her official engagement. The Prime Minister is still not using the tube or the bus to Finchley. Were she to do so, she would get involved in conversations such as those in which many penalty fare collectors will take part—very heated and bitter discussions—because she would meet the people who are being adversely affected by the legislation and she does not want to do that. She is not facing up to the difficulties which her legislation encompasses and the specific transport difficulties that are now being created.
It is extremely unfair that the elite in our society should be imposing a system on people claiming that it will recoup some of the fares that are estimated to be lost through fraud each year. The note from the promoters makes that justification. It says that, with all the massive investment of many millions of pounds in new ticket equipment, they will now reduce the millions of pounds lost each year in fare evasion. One of the best ways of reducing fare evasion would be to employ more ticket collectors and to have more spot checks. That would have been better than this massive investment. As I have said several times before—it bears repeating—people are our greatest asset.
The figures for the losses can at the most be estimates. By virtue of the fact that the figures are for fare evasion, we have no guaranteed knowledge that they are accurate.

Mr. Snape: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend yet again. I know that he is not aware of what I am about to say because he was unable to obtain the relevant document. I can tell him that the figure given in the document for fare evasion in May 1986 was £19·5 million. Remarkably, by February 1989, when the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) first moved the Second Reading, the figure had grown to £26 million. Are not those figures remarkably accurate when, by the very nature of fare evasion, the figures can only be guessed at?

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. It is a remarkable chance that the figures have risen, as he said, from the 1986 figure of £19·5 million to the latest figure of £26 million.

People may be driven to the conclusion that those guesses—which is all that they are—have been inflated to justify the Bill, which must be one of the worst bases on which to propose legislation. The working party guessed the scale of evasion and as it was attempting to justify the imposition of the new machinery and the removal of people, it had to produce rather high figures. When this legislation was introduced, instead of providing a complete rationale with considerable information and copies of the report, it decided that it would produce yet another inflated figure. It probably decided to increase the figure by the level of inflation. That was no justification for the figure.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is on to an important point. A failing of our system of government is that the Minister will say that the level of evasion is £26 million and we shall have to take his word for it. I am not blaming him, because that would be true of whoever was the Minister. In a better system of government, the Minister would have asked whether we would like to come round to his office and would have ensured that London Regional Transport would have its expert there and that all the figures would be available for us or our assistants to peruse. He would have said that there was nothing to hide. In this place, we never have such offers and my hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Cryer: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I would be interested to learn whether there are any detailed calculations relating to the £19·5 million in the document, which was not provided in the Vote Office tonight, or whether it was merely a bald figure. I suspect the latter, because if the working party had produced detailed statistical justification, it would be subject to more challenge. The less detail one provides, the more difficult it is to challenge. We must say that we reject the figure because it has been plucked from the air. Perhaps the Treasury gave advice on that, because the Treasury is rather fond of plucking figures from the air. The figure is fallacious and until the promoters produce information based on the calculations produced by the 1986 working party report, I fear that we shall have to reject the figure.
However, the hon. Member for Ilford, South does not seem very interested. He is busy trying to fix things with the Government Whip and since this is essentially a Government Bill, that is understandable. I am pleading for the promoter to provide us with the detailed figures on which the alleged loss of fares revenue is based. I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will have time to reply to the debate. I do not wish to take too long because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East wishes to participate.

Dr. Marek: rose—

Mr. Cryer: I give way to my hon. Friend with pleasure, although this will have to be the last time.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has once again made an important point. We must decide whether the Bill is the right way to stop fare evasion, which we are all against. Perhaps my hon. Friend will couple his plea for the provision of figures about evasion in the London system with a plea for the figures on evasion in the Tyne and Wear Metro system, which is an open system. If we could compare the evasion in the two different systems, we would be in a better position to judge the merits of this Bill.

Mr. Cryer: I am sure that the sponsor, who has been plotting with the Government Whip, has been taking an interest in our affairs. I hope that he can provide the information that I require.

Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman has asked me many questions and I am looking forward to having the time to answer them.

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman and should like to ask him another question because I am not sure whether his attention was firmly fixed on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). My hon. Friend referred to comparisons with the Tyne and Wear Metro. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a recently constructed, virtually new metropolitan railway system, which has proved extremely successful. It would be interesting to know the comparative levels of fare evasion.
I have now said enough to express my views and my strong reservations about the proposed legislation. I hope that the promoter can answer some if not all of the points that I have raised. In view of the welter of questions, the preferable option would be to withdraw the Bill for more mature consideration.

Mr. Portillo: I had the opportunity of speaking at an earlier stage of the Bill's progress to express the Government's view. Therefore, I need not take up much of the House's time tonight, except to say that the Government support the Bill.
Both London Regional Transport and British Rail lose considerable amounts of money from people travelling on their services without having paid the correct fare or any fare at all. That simply increases the costs of travel for the honest passenger. Penalty fare arrangements are widely used abroad and we believe that LRT and BR should be allowed the opportunity of introducing similar systems in this country.
Although a penalty fares scheme based on existing legislation operates on the docklands light railway, it is true to say that penalty fares will be largely unfamiliar to the British travelling public. It is therefore right that the Committees of both Houses should have spent some time discussing the details of the Bill.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will seek to respond to the specific points that have been raised tonight. However, I stress that it will not be possible for LRT to introduce a penalty fares scheme on any of its services unless an activating order is issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Before an activating order is issued we will need to be convinced that the system proposed by LRT is completely fair to passengers and that it is likely to work effectively. In order for penalty fares to work, a passenger must have a reasonable opportunity to buy the correct ticket for the journey and it follows that the operator must provide adequate opportunities for the passenger to buy a ticket at the start of his journey. That is the crux of any penalty fares scheme and we shall be paying particular attention to that in considering any request for an activating order that is put to us by London Regional Transport.

Mr. Snape: The Minister's contribution was illuminating and on this occasion he certainly did not detain the House for too long. I do not know whether the absence of

his advisers from their usual place had anything to do with the brevity of his contribution, but he made no attempt to tackle any of the points or questions raised this evening. I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will spend considerably longer replying to these important matters than did the Minister.
My hon. Friends, who have been the main contributors to the debate, have rightly subjected the Bill to considerable scrutiny. My immediate criticism of it is that it represents yet another worsening of conditions for the travelling public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is not at present in the Chamber, asked about the compensation of the working party from whose recommendations the Bill flows. Before informing the House of the composition of that working party, it might be helpful if I informed my hon. Friends, and, indeed, the sponsor of the Bill, of some background to its introduction.
The Opposition remember that the penalty fares provisions first appeared in the London Regional Transport Act 1984. That was a not inappropriate year for that legislation, because prior to the abolition of the Greater London council, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who was at that time Secretary of State for Transport, was determined to strip the GLC of its principal function, which was that of responsibility for transport matters in London. The right hon. Gentleman was asked during the Committee stage of the Bill about those penalty fares provisions and how they would work. Being the broad-brush man that he is—and the water-colour expert that he is to prove it—he predictably urged us to wait until the outline was filled in. He promised us—truthfully as it turned out—that legislation would eventually appear.
In 1986 Ministers set up the working party to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South referred. I should have thought that that was indicative of their desire to see machines issue tickets and collect them at the end of the journey. It has been a consistent thread of the Government's policy that demanning, especially in public sector industries, is what government is about, and that any standard or concept of service for the travelling public is very much a back number—if it is considered at all.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South that there were no permanent secretary's in the working party—they being far too grand to serve on working parties investigating matters affecting the travelling public. However, the Department of Transport was represented by three members of the public transport, London division, and a legal adviser; the Home Office by someone from CI division; the Lord Chancellor's Department by a gentleman from the private and international law division and London Regional Transport by two representatives, a solicitor and the group planning manager.
It is difficult to imagine that members of that working party had much experience of the problems of rush hour travel or, indeed, any other sort of travel on London Underground. The Home Office representative was the only woman member of the team, but we do not know whether she was qualified in the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South starkly outlined, in that she had experienced some of the difficulties faced by


women travelling on London Underground. Appendix 1 of the working party report makes no mention of her grade or circumstances.
An indication of the thinking behind the report can be readily gleaned from the preamble, which states:
This report has been prepared by an inter-Departmental Working Group on Penalty Fares set up by Ministers in May 1986.
Its terms of reference and membership are set out in appendix I, which I have already mentioned.
In paragraph B of the report, £19·5 million is given as the amount lost due to fare evasion on the London Underground. It also refers to a further £9 million lost due to fare evasion on the buses and states that the trend is rising. That is the sort of unquantifiable statement so beloved by interdepartmental working parties anxious to justify the inevitable conclusions and anxious to please their political masters. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South that no detailed figures or explanation was given as to how the original figure was arrived at.
9.45 pm
Perhaps I could add to the ever-increasing burden of the hon. Member for Ilford, South by asking him to tell the House how that £19·5 million has grown to £26 million and whether the promoters have provided him with any detailed figures to justify that second and higher figure.
In paragraph B(4) reference is made to the
substantial reduction in operating costs
We should insert in brackets "that means manpower costs".
The report states that London Underground is investing £135 million in a new, highly automated ticket system. Bearing in mind the impact that inflation has had on the supposed figure lost through fare evasion, does the hon. Member for Ilford, South have any information as to the impact of inflation on the £135 million investment laid out in the 1986 report?
A suggestion of the report's lack of credibility can be found in the preamble where reference is made to
the need for a penalty fares scheme on the buses is much less pressing since it is more difficult to travel on a bus without buying or showing a ticket
It goes on to point out that on one-person-operated buses the ticket is purchased from the driver, but from conductors in other circumstances. That was written before the Chinese and others were lucky enough to benefit from the virtual gift of Routemaster buses from London Buses Ltd., or whatever fancy name it calls itself these days.
Those of us who travel regularly on public transport will be aware that there is widespread fare evasion on buses, particularly on OPO buses where the top deck is a no-go area for the driver. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South is right that the top deck is, all too often, a no-go area at night for women or anyone else who does not fancy a broken nose. Among certain regular bus users it is customary to pay the minimum fare and then to retire to the top deck knowing full well that the driver has too much to do to ascertain whether people have gone beyond the stage for which they paid. The possibility of an inspector boarding a bus to check whether the correct fare has been paid is, particularly late at night, almost

non-existent. Such is the credibility that the working party must bridge, but it appears from a couple of hours' reading of its report that it has singularly failed to do that.
In paragraph G of the report the working party outlines the major issues of principle and asks:
Should lack of reasonable opportunity to buy a ticket be the sole valid excuse for not having one?
What is a valid excuse for not having a ticket? Most of us travel on public transport, except, of course, Ministers who never have to worry about that. Reference has already been made to the new ticket machines, part of the £135 million plus inflation investment designed to strip London Underground of any human presence.
We are all aware that in their new and pristine condition these machines do everything except play pop records on Radio 2 or Capital Gold. The theory is that someone puts his money into a slot and, depending on the type of machine, chooses his destination or ticket price and receives not only a ticket, but change. As my hon. Friends have indicated, all too often the machine's light emitting diode display shows that it will accept only the correct change.
In what should be a showpiece station, Westminster —of course, in London Underground's opinion it is not, because its showcase station is St. James's park where the top brass work—many, sometimes most of the fairly newly-installed machines display the legend, "correct change only".
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South graphically illustrated the dilemma of a woman with two small children, perhaps in a fractious mood, with a pram, trolley or shopping basket. Under the general statement of principles, could such a passenger claim lack of reasonable opportunity because of the deficiency of these machines and the fact that a proportion, perhaps the majority, of them will accept only the correct change? Perhaps the hon. Member for Ilford, South could answer that question.
All of us can envisage the scenario, whether at Westminster or any other well-used tube station, in which the ticket window is surrounded by a considerable number of people. The window is supposed to be manned until at least 7 or 8 o'clock in the evening, although I can record a number of occasions in recent years when the supposed showpiece station next door was not manned at all after 7, 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening, which is an indictment of the incompetence and general lack of interest of London Underground management. In a city which prides itself in attracting tourists, it is likely that language and currency difficulties would be experienced at the station ticket window. The patience of those standing in the queue would be rapidly exhausted by the sort of exchanges which we can imagine taking place between the passengers and the ticket clerk.
Given that combination of by no means unlikely circumstances, the passenger may decide to take her fractious children, shopping basket and trolley to a London Underground train without buying a ticket. She would have to do so single-handed, because the demanning of stations means that she would have to lever her children, shopping basket and trolley on to the train herself. Guards and assistance for people in those circumstances are an old-fashioned concept of the past. If she decided to travel without a ticket, would the hon. Member for Ilford, South consider that she had had a reasonable opportunity to buy a ticket? If not, would she, under the terms of the Bill, be liable for a penalty fare?
The second issue of principle in this section of the Bill—

Mr. Barry Sheerman: The Minister was deep in conversation during some of the important points made by my hon. Friend. Of course, we know that he is reluctant to use public transport; otherwise, he would not have been late for the Pavarotti concert the Sunday before last when he tried to get there by car and arrived after the concert had begun, which must have been disconcerting both for him and for Mr. Pavarotti. The lady with the children would have been warned by the Labour Member from her constituency not only to have the right change, but against travelling on the tube in the first place because so many passengers passing through the new turnstiles have had their tickets munched up by the ticket machines. The ticket would never come out the other side. If she was waiting for a British Rail train at the other end, she might force her way through and get on the train with no ticket, through no fault of her own. If she were a constituent of mine, she might miss her train to Huddersfield if she did not. She would never have got the pushchair through the barrier in the first place, though.

Mr. Snape: I am torn between considering Pavarotti halting in mid-note to greet the exalted personage who, alas, is no longer with us, and my hon. Friend's constituent going all the way to Huddersfield on London Underground. Neither scenario is particularly likely, but my hon. Friend painted a graphic picture which must have placed yet another question mark in the mind of the hon. Member for Ilford, South, who is responsible for piloting this shabby piece of legislation through the House.
I was referring to the major issues of principle laid down in the report which generated this piece of legislation. The second principle is as follows:
To what extent should inspectors retain the discretion to waive penalty fares or to institute prosecution procedures as an alternative to levying a penalty fare?
I have never had the dubious pleasure of working for London Underground in the days of a Conservative Government, but I am probably the only Member who has been a guard on the railway and travelled on extremely crowded trains. My heart goes out to the inspectors charged with collecting the penalty fares. Twenty-one years ago—

Mr. Thorne: Does the hon. Gentleman want me to answer his questions? If so, he is giving me very little time in which to do so.

Mr. Snape: I do not want to appear to be lecturing the hon. Gentleman on procedure, but I am sure that provision will be made through the usual channels, which

I note are conferring even now, for him to reply at some unspecified future time. Once we have discussed the many amendments that appear on the Paper, we look forward to hearing from the hon. Gentleman.
I hope I may be permitted a little trip down memory lane as I ask the House to come back with me to 1968, the era of flower power and San Francisco, when the hon. Member who now represents West Bromwich, East was a passenger guard at Manchester's Victoria station. One of the trains on which I sometimes worked then was the 23·30 from Manchester to Rochdale via Oldham, which called at all stations. Sometimes on a Saturday night some of the passengers on that train were a little boisterous Since coming here I have learnt that the phrase is, "They had dined well," but I should not have thought—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House is fascinated by this, but does the Underground go up there?

Mr. Snape: It does not, but the same principle applies, Mr. Speaker. I sense a certain frisson among those charged with the heavy responsibility of advising you from time to time on these matters—

Mr. Thorne: I beg to move, That the Question be now put—

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Ilford, South has not replied yet.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must have an opportunity to reply before I grant the closure.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I conclude my reminiscences by pointing out that the dilemma faced by the inspector on the Underground when collecting penalty fares would be as great—

Dr. Marek: rose—

Mr. Snape: Let me finish my reminiscences; I can scarcely bring myself to stop again. Already I feel a wave of nostalgia sweeping over me. My point is that the inspector charged with these onerous responsibilities would face enormous difficulties if he had to tackle a similar crowd of people to those with whom I had the problem of dealing in 1968. My last word about 1968 is that it was an era of flower power when no one ever resorted to physical violence. That was the theory. Things are very different in brutal Britain in 1989. I fear that an inspector charged with collecting penalty fares on a Saturday night on London Underground would need at least some protection before he embarked on the journey—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Services Discipline

10 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Michael Neubert): I beg to move,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
The purpose of this order is to continue in force for a further year the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together provide the statutory basis for discipline in the three services.
Annual parliamentary approval for the special legal status of the service man or woman whereby he or she is subject to the constraints of military discipline as well the rule of civil law is a long-established constitutional concept. The Select Committee examining the last Armed Forces Bill in 1986 recommended that the current system for a five-yearly Armed Forces Act and annual extension of the service discipline Acts by Order in Council be continued.
We shall, of course, be giving further consideration to some of the areas highlighted by the 1986 Select Committee in considering proposals for the next quinquennial Bill. The House will, I am sure, understand that I am not able to anticipate the provisions of the Bill. However, I think that this may be an appropriate time to review some of the further progress we have made in response to the Select Committee. My hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), gave our response to the recommendations of the Select Committee in July 1987. Since then, and in particular, enabling provisions have been made in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for standing civilian courts and courts martial to suspend sentences of imprisonment imposed on civilians subject to the service discipline Acts. Although the number of cases likely to be involved is very small, it is a sensible and useful provision.
We also, of course, continue to keep the provisions of civilian legislation generally under review so that they are mirrored in service legislation to the extent that it is practical and sensible. This review is part of the balance we seek to maintain between the rights of service men and women as citizens on the one hand and the extra constraints necessarily imposed on them by service discipline on the other.
Making service personnel aware of their rights and responsibilities is therefore of great importance. In line with the Select Committee's recommendation, all the three service leaflets given to those charged with offences under the service discipline Acts have been reviewed and revised and updated where appropriate. I am also pleased to be able to tell the House that the general leaflet on rights and responsibilities which was introduced last year for all new recruits is being updated and expanded.
I am conscious, too, that a fair and equitable system of discipline is essential to the maintenance of good morale and effectiveness in the armed forces. The conditions of service we offer will be ever more important in recruiting and retaining the personnel we need to sustain the nation's defences.
Inevitably, perhaps, one hears about breaches of discipline which occur and this can distract from a recognition of the overwhelming adherence that there is to it. Service men and women recognise that service discipline

is a critical protection for themselves in the fast-moving, highly skilled and sometimes dangerous job that they do. Anybody who chooses to breach that discipline can be a liability not only to himself but to his colleagues and even civilians. We therefore owe it to those who serve in the armed forces with such professionalism, skill and dedication, and to whom I pay wholehearted tribute tonight, to ensure that the system of discipline is upheld. Accordingly, I invite the House to approve the order.

Mr. Allan Rogers: On behalf of the Opposition, I also pay tribute to our service men and women, who as the Minister said, in their dedication and discipline give such great service to the country.
The Minister referred to the pamphlet on rights and responsibilities that is given to new recruits. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes), who cannot be with us because of illness—I am sure that the House would like to send him our best wishes —suggested that the pamphlet should be distributed to all members of the forces. I should have thought that the Minister could take that idea on board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South also referred last year to the problem of bullying, both informal and formalised, in often brutal initiation ceremonies. Unfortunately, what we see in the media and what has been reported to us shows that the problem has not diminished. Even today, people accused of these outlawed offences are being prosecuted. I appreciate that the Minister is doing his best, but unfortunately his best is not good enough. Will he once again emphasise to senior officers that this sadistic behaviour is not to be tolerated in our armed services? Will he tell them that the prevalence of this behaviour in the units under their command shows their inability to command? Will he consider taking action against such senior officers, because that would go a long way to solving the problem and stamping out these sadistic practices?

Sir Antony Buck: The hon. Gentleman, who knows a lot about armed forces establishments, used the word "prevalence". Will he agree that that was not the right word to use, because only a small minority go in for this awful practice of bullying? Furthermore, senior officers in all the forces are determined to see that it is stopped, just as we all are.

Mr. Rogers: I agree. I used the word "prevalence" in its literal sense rather than in any quantifiable sense. Perhaps the word "occurrence" might be better, as I was not intending to show any specific numbers or to suggest that there were large numbers of offences.
We should remember that the cases of bullying and initiation ceremonies that come to the fore are but the tip of the iceberg. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will acknowledge, those of us who have served in armed forces know that this sort of thing used to be much more widespread, but, because of the efforts of various Ministers and senior officers, it has been cut substantially. I still do not like the idea that it exists in our armed services. It is difficult enough for people to train in what is, by necessity, a tough and disciplined profession. Bullying has no place in training tough soldiers, sailors and airmen.
We welcome the report on the ethnic origins of applicants for entry into the regular forces, which is part


of the Defence Estimates this year. I am still trying to wade through the statistical morass of this report, but I accept the broad conclusion of the substantial under-representation of the ethnic minorities in our armed forces. The Royal Air Force, because of different recruiting techniques, appears to be more successful than the other services in dealing with that problem. Will the Minister urge all services to consider methods used in other branches and then adopt a universal approach based on the best practice?
Until we can integrate our ethnic minorities into all institutions of public life, whether the armed services, the police or whatever, there will not be a truly integrated society. A career in the armed services is a good opportunity for ethnic minorities to become fully integrated.
The subject of AIDS was mentioned in both the 1987 and 1988 continuation order debates. Last year the Ministry of Defence said that it had recognised the seriousness of the problem and had played a full part in the AIDS education campaign. How successful does the Minister believe the campaign to have been? Has his Department kept central records of the number of personnel tested HIV-positive? If so, what are the results of those records? The Independent reported on 19 June that the rate of HIV infection in the US Army, while lower than in the civilian population, was higher than expected on previous estimates. Can the Minister assure the House that all reasonable steps are being taken to monitor the British position?
Another matter raised in previous debates was the increasing use of private contractors for services such as cleaning and catering. Concern was expressed about the use of service personnel to complete work that the contractors had left unfinished. Has that practice now ended?
We are concerned about the MOD's management of its housing stock. It has been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee, which noted that the MOD had said that it recognised the need to do much better in its management of married quarters. The question is whether better management is, in itself, sufficient. The 18th report of the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay, Cmnd. 579, referred to the poor quality of much service accommodation and said that better management arrangements would not, in themselves, make more money available.
There has been considerable criticism from hon. Members on both sides of the House of the Government's overall policy towards service accommodation. In the Army debate on 8 June the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who I am sure will participate in this debate, devoted considerable time to detailing the terrible problems of Army personnel when attempting to become owner-occupiers. It was clear that he had considerable support from many of his hon. Friends. The provision of appropriate housing for service personnel is one of the main determinants of morale, but it is evident that the Government are failing to deal with the problem.
A scheme must be evolved to ensure that service families have homes on leaving the service. That has been discussed for many years, but we have not yet achieved a resolution of that peculiar and difficult problem. Even for those who can afford it, house purchase during armed service and its consequent absentee landlordism does not work, especially for those who now face seven-year tours of duty in Germany. Every garrison has its crop of horror

stories about experiences of letting houses in Britain. The families have to carry a double burden of mortgage and rent, usually on a single income. They cannot bear those risks for long.
I am sure that Conservative Members wish to contribute to the debate, as they have in previous defence debates, so I shall not speak at length. However, the problem is serious and must be resolved. I understand that the hon. Member for Canterbury tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill. I do not know whether it was accepted or rejected because I have not followed that Bill in all its gory detail.

Mr. Julian Brazier: My amendment was firmly rejected by members of both Front Benches. However, constructive discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends continue. I hope that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will extend the constructive views that he has expressed over the past minute or so to members of the shadow Treasury team.

Mr. Rogers: Yes, and I understand the problems of right hon. and hon. Members on both Front Benches. I feel sure that they wish to consider sympathetically other proposals, which could include direct assistance from the Ministry of Defence, which currently feels that fiscal relief within the Finance Bill is not the answer, and that such an arrangement would create all sorts of problems in respect of tax relief extended to purchasers in other peculiar situations. There can be no doubt that at present there are instances of premature voluntary retirement among skilled NCOs, for example, who are encouraged by their wives to leave early as they seek security for their family when a suitable house and job becomes available.
I know that the Ministry of Defence is sympathetic and recognises that problem, and if it cannot be resolved in the Finance Bill perhaps it can be sorted out within the Ministry. We shall do all that we can to help the Minister to resolve that problem.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for an opportunity to participate in the debate, because I am also very concerned about incidents of bullying. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of extremely serious allegations of bullying of one of my constituents, who ended up in hospital with a split kidney. I cannot go into any detail on those allegations, or even name my constituent or his regiment, as I understand that the matter is now sub judice and that a court martial is proceeding. Nevertheless, one or two aspects surrounding that case, but not directly connected with it, are of particular concern.
In case there may be any doubt, I should say at the start that the case to which I refer does not involve my local regiment, the 36th Engineers, which has an extremely proud record on that score and about which I have never heard even the slightest whisper of any bullying.
My concern is that recruiting policies are at fault, and that people are being recruited who are liable to engage in a sustained campaign of bullying. Whether or not it is proved that there was such a campaign in the case of my constituent, cases have been proven at courts martial over the 12 months since our previous debate. In other words, one is not dealing always with an NCO who momentarily lost his temper and hit a subordinate. No matter how


deplorable such an incident may be, it is at least an impulsive action and not part of a campaign of sustained and cruel bullying, which is a sign of a deeply flawed character.
I ask myself how people capable of such behaviour manage to get through the recruiting process. It seems that there is a need for it to be tightened up. We must ask also why such bullying is more prevalent in the Army—and I use the word "prevalent" in exactly the same sense as it was used by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers)—than in the other two services.
I am concerned also about the remedy available to young soldiers who are the victims of bullying. The case to which I referred involves a 17-year-old recruit who had only just joined up and who was away from home for the first time. What measures has the Army taken to ensure that young recruits can report what they are having to endure without fear of reprisal? The questions that I asked that recruit included why he did not go to his commanding officer or telephone home. The answer was that there was direct intimidation against doing so.
Surely the Army can devise a foolproof means of dealing with the matter, similar to the recognised grievance procedure used by any employee in a civilian occupation. When a recruit alleges bullying and his allegation appears to stand up, he should be protected immediately from whatever intimidation has been threatened, and his allegations should be considered seriously from the start in the recruit's base. In the case that I encountered, the parent had to go to the barracks before any justice was won.
I am also concerned about the role played by NCOs. It is now generally acknowledged that many NCOs have to spend so much time on paperwork—indeed, they are taken on specifically for the purpose—that they are no longer spending as much time as they used to on training their men and, above all, looking after their welfare. That is a negation of the role that we expect them to be drafted and promoted to carry out.
For those three reasons—particularly my concern about recruits' recourse on base once the bullying has started, and the role of NCOs—I would welcome a response from the Minister. When my constituent's case has been decided by a court martial and any appeals have been dealt with, I hope to raise the matter in much more detail, because I believe that it has many worrying implications.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Like others who have spoken, I pay tribute to the men and women in our armed forces. I suspect that discipline and morale are inextricably linked: if discipline is right morale will almost certainly be right, and if morale is right the punishing effects of discipline will almost inevitably be unnecessary.
Although conducted in a rather low-key way—in a spirit of bipartisanship, or even tripartisanship—the debate is of some constitutional significance. The 1689 Bill of Rights provided that an army could not be maintained without the consent of Parliament. Although this is in some respects a symbolic occasion, it none the less reflects the fact that Parliament retains an important constitutional control over those who serve in our armed forces and the system of discipline imposed on them.
I was heartened to hear the Minister say that the procedures were being kept under constant review, particularly in the light of the developments in criminal procedure for civilians. My experience of military discipline is rather limited, being confined to appearing as civilian defence counsel in a naval court martial. My recollection of the event—which was spread over three or four days—is of the extraordinary lengths to which the naval authorities went to ensure that I, as a civilian lawyer, was in no way disadvantaged or inhibited. I also recall the lengths to which the judge advocate's representative went to ensure that, in that capacity, I was made familiar with the procedures that were adoped. If anecdotal evidence can be relied on in a debate such as this, let me say that my direct experience of these matters has been entirely favourable.
I can also speak from experience of a case of someone —I must protect his anonymity—who was originally sentenced to seven years for an offence which, again, I should not reveal. After a variety of appeal procedures, his sentence was reduced to six months. That gave rise, not surprisingly, to some sense of relief on the part of the individual concerned and his family, but it raised in my mind the question whether the way in which the original sentence had been imposed was in accordance with the principles we would all think necessary to attend on a case of that kind.
If we face a demographic trend which will make it more difficult to recruit people to the armed services, we shall have to ensure that their conditions, once they join up, encourage them to go on being members of the armed services. Also, if we must rely on more female members of the armed services, that may have some consequence for the nature of the discipline employed in all three services.
May we be assured that the constant review to which the Minister referred will be tailored to take account of those trends and of the alteration, to some extent, in the character of the three services with which the order is concerned?
I shall say little about bullying. There must be a point at which robust training—that which is necessary to discover the character of an individual who presents himself or herself for the demanding tasks which service men and women perform—lmoves from what is legitimate to what is sadistic, and that must sometimes be a narrow issue. But systematic bullying should never be permitted.
Reference has been made to commanding officers. In my judgment, a commanding officer who does not know that systematic bullying is taking place in a unit for which he or she has responsibility is not fulfilling those responsibilities. I have no doubt that the Minister will assure the House that the Ministry of Defence brings this responsibility home to those who are in command of units where there may be a risk of the kind of unacceptable behaviour which the whole House would condemn and which, if publicized—even if involving only minor incidents—brings nothing but harm to the reputation of the three services to which hon. Members have paid justifiable tribute.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I shall raise three points. The first concerns the issues raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) about the need for a new approach to the problem of service men leaving the services and wanting to buy homes.
The House generally was encouraged by the constructive response from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces at the end of the recent debate on the Army. I was also encouraged by the fact that, although the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was not happy with proposals that were put to him when we discussed the Finance Bill, in particular about tax relief on rent, he clearly acknowledged that a serious problem existed, and he agreed to discuss possible solutions to it.
While I appreciate that the Minister is seeking solutions, the final solution must not be based on the concept of two households. It has been shown time and again not to work. The concept of trying to persuade a sergeant or corporal, or even a junior officer, in Germany or Ulster to try to run two households—to be paying rent at one end and a mortgage at the other—does not work.
There must be a scheme which is linked to the eventual purchase of a house so that a man can feel confident that he will be able to afford a home at the end of his service without attempting to run two households while is serving. This problem applies particularly to the Army, because soldiers principally serve abroad, although it applies also to some sections of the RAF.

Mr. David Nicholson: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's efforts relating to the matter that he has just mentioned. I have had constituency cases involving service men seeking to buy houses, so I hope that he will eventually achieve a successful solution to the problem. It would be odd if a Conservative Government, who are promoting so vigorously the concept of home ownership in all other sections of society, did not remove the obstacles that face service men.

Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's comments.
My second point affects the Royal Navy in particular and to a much lesser extent other members of the armed forces. It is most important to maintain morale. Mobility is not the problem in the Royal Navy; the problem is separation. The fact that those who serve in the Royal Navy spend so much time away from their wives is extremely bad for morale. Ships are now spending more time at sea than at any time since the second world war. For financial reasons, we have reduced the numbers of service men in shore postings, where we have introduced civilianisation.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces referred briefly to conditions of service. In last year's review of allowances a quite reasonable change was made as it applied to the other services but it has had a most serious effect on those who serve in the Royal Navy. Moreover, I was told in a written answer a few weeks ago that it has saved almost no money. I refer to the change in the arrangements for the payment of boarding school allowances.
Justification for the payment of boarding school allowances to members of the other two services has always been that it was the only means by which the child of a soldier or an airman could enjoy a continuous

education, now that the state boarding schools have disappeared. It has been ruled that service men whose wives and families do not accompany them will lose the allowance. Those who are coming towards the end of their service have always had rather a raw deal, but it has always been most unfair on those who serve in the Royal Navy. In their case, the main problem is separation from their families. The allowance provided some means of taking some of the strain off their wives.
It has now been ruled that the wife has to follow the husband if he happens to have a shore posting between two sea-going ones. That will lead to all the mobility problems from which the two other services already suffer, on top of the extraordinary strain of separation. The Royal Navy's case is special. It is by far the smallest service. The cost of the boarding school allowances is only £24 million a year. The sharp increase during the last 12 months of premature voluntary release, particularly among officers, is a direct result of that policy.
My third and last point is about how to attract more members of the ethnic minority communities into the armed forces. If we are to become a united society, we must attract more of them into the armed forces. I hope that the suggestion I am about to make will he taken constructively. It is a chicken and egg situation. Members of the ethnic communities are in a small minority in the armed forces. One hears that in some instances hey feel threatened, not so much by bullying but by the general feeling that they are being ostracised.
A means of attracting people from the ethnic communities into the services might be to build on the experience that we already have of the regimental structure. There is a London Scottish regiment. It is not confined to Scotsmen and it is very successful. I have a friend in it. There is a London Irish regiment and, of course, there are the Gurkha regiments. They are all historic regiments with a tremendous war record. If we were to experiment, perhaps in the territorial army with a London Sikh regiment—the Sikhs have a fine military tradition—one unit that provided a focus for excellence could act as a flagship for attracting members of ethnic minorities into the armed forces. However, that is just a thought. I shall conclude, having made my three points.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I shall be brief. I wish to discuss service men who contract HIV infections or AIDS. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) in asking the Minister to provide the figures for those in the armed forces who contract the HIV virus and AIDS and to tell us whether the position is being properly monitored by his Department.
I raised the subject in last year's debate on the armed forces. Some of the points that I made then are still relevant. I said:
a television programme … concerned with the United States forces in Thailand … showed that the Thai Government were most irresponsible in relation to visiting troops. That might apply, too, to countries that our troops visit. For example, in some of the African countries as many as 90 per cent. of prostitutes have the HIV virus. If our soldiers frequent such establishments, perhaps in a fit of drunkenness or a deliberate act on their part, they take a grave —grave is the right word in this context—risk.
The Minister should not only promote health ecuca.tion, which is vital, but put pressure on the Governments of the countries which our troops visit to behave responsibly and clean up those areas where AIDS can be spread.


My final point was:
The Government should be examining ways of making it easy for those in the armed forces who contract AIDS to acknowledge it, leave the armed forces and receive proper care. They need to be able to do that without fear, without shame and stigma and, especially, without severe financial hardship. If that does not happen, they will stay in the armed forces and try to cover it up and suffer."—[Official Report, 14 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 681–82.]
Those points are still relevant, but the Minister's predecessor did not reply to them. Unfortunately, there is no sign that they have received any consideration since.
The Government should put pressure on countries where our troops could be at risk. Health education should be undertaken on a large scale by all the armed forces on a regular basis and should include the availability of condoms. Those who contract the HIV virus should be given the opportunity to leave quietly without financial loss and with access to follow-up care.
Contracting HIV or AIDS should not be a disciplinary offence or a cover for another disciplinary offence to get those who are infected out of the armed forces. The Ministry of Defence has to deal with the matter properly.

Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this debate on Army, Navy and Air Force discipline and morale. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for not being here for all his speech. I should be grateful if he would address one or two of my comments in his winding-up speech.
One of the first speeches that I made in the House concerned personnel shortages in the armed forces. More specifically, I dealt with pilots in the Air Force. I was assured then that such shortages did not exist and that no shortages were projected. We can see 18 months later that such shortages exist and are becoming worse. They are spreading to many sectors of all three services. Previously, shortages were confined to specific trades and specific qualifications, but we now see infantry battalions, for example, especially in Germany, under strength simply because they cannot meet their recruiting targets. The problem that should have been addressed 18 months ago has clearly not been addressed, and we now face an even bigger problem as a result. I hope that we shall do something about that quickly.
The latest allowance package has been at best neutral and at worst counter-productive in terms of encouraging people to stay in the three services and discouraging people from leaving. The proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) to help people in the armed forces to buy their own property has had some success at least in the Finance Bill. I am disappointed by the response of the Ministry of Defence to that initiative. It should have been able to react more quickly to some of the points made and to come up with other proposals in house, as it were. I hope that now, when it is clear to all that a problem exists, we shall come up with some proposals.
I have a few ideas for such proposals. We need to act quickly on recruiting, beyond the advertising campaigns used at present. I want to take up one of the points made on the recruitment of women. We have talked about that for far too long, especially in relation to training women pilots in the Air Force, as I said in the House 18 months

ago. I was assured there that thre was no need for such a proposal. Six months ago, a study was being carried out, but nothing has happened since.
We are very short of pilots in the Royal Air Force, yet we have a potential supply of highly qualified pilots outside. Women who are training at present with university air squadrons and who want to come into the Royal Air Force are being denied the opportunity to do so and are going into civilian airlines instead. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell us why we do not get on with the matter and start up a scheme to allow women to beome pilots in the Royal Air Force? I am not suggesting a huge scheme to allow women to fly all types of aircraft.

Mr. Frank Cook: A pilot scheme.

Mr. Mans: I just want to see a pilot scheme to allow women—

Mr. Cook: It should get off the ground.

Mr. Mans: I want to see a scheme to allow women to train initially at least for certain types of aircraft. I should have thought that that could be done by the end of this year, rather than having to wait two or three years.
We must solve the recruiting problem and we must also solve the rentention problem. People are leaving the service at too high a rate. As recently as a year ago, one set of figures said that there would be a surplus of 60 pilots in the Air Force. Within six months, that had changed to a deficit of 265. I can assume only that the people compiling the figures were working too much on historical data and were not projecting the figures far enough forward, bearing in mind the competition now posed by the airlines for the recruitment of people who can be trained as pilots. The way in which statistics are compiled has gone wrong in other areas as well, so we must produce schemes such as the one suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury for retaining people.
I should also like to see, as I have said previously in the House, that those who reach the end of their engagement receive their gratuity if they stay in the service, as well as if they leave. It seems odd that an organisation that is trying to retain people is paying them large sums of money to leave.
Equally, we must do something about the rents that service personnel pay for their accommodation and quarters. We could reduce the rents to significantly below their present levels so that service men would then have the opportunity to save up to buy their own homes for when they leave the service, perhaps using the sort of scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has suggested.
The matter is now of great urgency and I sincerely hope that the Ministry of Defence will look closely and quickly at ways of remedying the shortage of personnel in all three of our armed services.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am tempted to follow the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) down a few of his back lanes, but I feel that I must confine my main comments to the order. However, to offer the hon. Gentleman a crumb of consolation, he may be interested to know that the Army Air Corps has already earmarked its first female candidate for a pilot's course. However, it has done so on the basis that that lady is a doctor and is


finishing her military training. As a military doctor, she may have to render medical attention to casualties and be left without a pilot and she may need to get herself and the casualty out of that situation —and the pilot as well, if he is merely incapacitated. That seems a strange, singular and selective logic to apply to warfare. Although it may be a useful scenario for television situation comedies, it is less so for the hard life with which we expect our trained service men and women to cope.
I remind the Minister and the House that my position as Opposition defence Whip and as an active participant in the parliamentary armed services scheme has meant that in the past two years I have visited many service units in all arms of the services. I also remind the House that I am a member of the independent hoard of visitors of both the Royal Naval detention quarters at Portsmouth and of the military corrective training centre at Colchester. It is with particular reference to what I have experienced there and to what I have discussed right across the board with commissioned ranks, commanding officers and senior non-commissioned officers that I want to address two main issues tonight.
However, I begin with an issue that has been mentioned by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Wyre, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I refer to the level of training that we invest and the amount of attention and effort that we put into ensuring that our service men and women have adequate training of a high standard. It is no longer sufficient to shove a musket with a bayonet on the end of it into somebody's mitt and to tell him to get into the front line, because this is very much a high-tech activity in all regards, and we must try to ensure that we retain as much of that investment as we can.
From my visits to Colchester and to Pompey, I have learnt that one of the most common offences that invites detention is absence without leave. It was ever thus. However, that is quickly followed by another two classes of offence. The first relates to cash, and the second to drugs: I suppose that the problems for the young service man—I can speak only from experience as a service man in the Airborne Regiment because I was not in the WRAF, so if any of my female colleagues are here, they must forgive me.

Miss Widdecombe: What about me?

Mr. Cook: I apologise to the hon. Lady. I was referring to Opposition Members.
In my day, it was always a problem trying to manage and control negotiable assets. I vividly recall the shenanigans that went on after a pay parade, when we saluted with our right hand, and seized in our left hand a book and a quantity of money, and screamed, "Pay and book correct, sir." We never had the temerity to look at it to see whether that statement was correct; we were not allowed to. Having marched out of the pay parade, there was always a melee, with people saying, "Here is the pound I owe you," or, "There is the 25 bob you have been waiting for." Debts were then settled until the next night, when in the billet there was always the plea, "Lend us a quid." There was a kind of usury, willingly entered into by both lender and borrower.
Those were the days when "credit rating" was a term that still had to be invented. "Creditworthiness" had not

been heard of. To get a £20 overdraft, one had to have three guarantors and more than five hostages. I make light of it, but that is not the case now. We are in the times of instant credit, with nothing more than a plastic identification and a PIN number needed to unlock anybody's assets. A young person may be sent to a cash-point by a buddy or a girl friend with a plastic card and a PIN number with the instruction, "Get me 25 quid." When there, he finds it so easy to get that £25 out that he withdraws £30, with no effort and with almost a pat on the head for doing it, because the friend or girl friend is grateful to him for going. It is so easy to get into the situation of obtaining money by false pretences, fraudulent behaviour or thieving. We have made those offences much easier.
I know that there is cash and credit counselling, but it appears to come after the service man's record has been besmirched. It comes as a form of redemption rather than of prevention. I am seeking an assurance that emphasis will be put on this problem not only during the basic training periods and the early pastoral care that is necessary for service personnel, but as a continuing service, given not only to service men or women but to their families.
I realise that drugs are a delicate subject. Hon. Members should recall my points about the amount invested in training and in bringing service personnel up to scratch when considering drug offences. Most drug offences in the forces involve soft drugs. All of them at the end of the day invite dishonourable discharge. Inevitably, there will be some cases where serving individuals have possibly been caught in possession of a minimal amount of cannabis, have served a fairly lengthy stretch of detention and then find themselves decanted into civvy street with the type of skill which is difficult to replace in the services and impossible to use in civvy street. There are many such people.
From time to time informed commentators—I freely admit that I am not one of them—within the armed forces, the medical profession and on civvy street express the opinion that perhaps we should consider a change of attitude to the use of soft drugs. I do not make that plea. I simply remind the Minister that we have heard about the demographic trough, about the difficulties in recruitment and about the investment in training. Our allies who find that their personnel are taking soft drugs do not operate such stringent rules as ours. If we are to believe Fleet street, or rather its replacement, our enemies' service personnel are apparently using drugs left, right and centre.
I do not plead any case, but if unofficial discussions about this matter are taking place and if senior people are quietly expressing their views, perhaps there is a case for a discreet examination of the statistics vis a vis ourselves and our NATO allies. Perhaps we could then consider alternative treatment and action in such drugs cases as opposed to automatic discharge.

Mr. Neubert: This has been a relatively succinct and significant debate on matters of importance. It is my intention to endeavour to respond to the best of my ability to the majority of the points that have been raised tonight. I welcome hon. Members' interest in the well-being of Her Majesty's armed forces.
First, I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) for his welcome to the introduction of the leaflet for new recruits on their rights and responsibilities. I assure him that, in deference to the undertaking given by my predecessor last year, we considered making that leaflet available to all members of the services. That suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) whose absence we regret and to whom we wish a speedy return to the House.
Having considered the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, however, we came to the conclusion that that would mean issuing some 300,000 copies of the leaflet, which, in general terms, covers a number of subjects. That information is already widely available to units, notices are posted and members of the armed forces have access to advice on all the issues covered. We therefore believe that it would not be to the advantage of the armed forces to distribute the leaflet as widely as suggested. We suspect that, in common with so much literature that is sent to us, it might end up in the bin. That would not be an effective use of resources. We understand, however, the need for members of the services to have proper advice on their rights.
It is a matter of regret, but also of reality, that in such a short debate hon. Members have concentrated, naturally, not on the overwhelming adherence to discipline that applies in the armed forces, but on those examples that hit the headlines and naturally cause concern. I shall respond to that concern, but I hope that it will be seen in the perspective of generally good morale, first-class discipline and dedication among our armed services.
The subject of bullying once again played a prominent part in this debate, with more than one Member mentioning it. We have made clear more than once, and shall continue to do so, that bullying and ill-treatment have no place in service life and will not be tolerated. Each allegation is viewed most seriously and is thoroughly investigated. Progress has been made in implementing the range of measures announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) on 7 June last year. I have set them out in a letter to the hon. Member for Clackmann (Mr. O'Neill) dated 23 June this year, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.
It may be as well to list some of the measures taken. All levels in the chain of command have been reminded that bullying and ill-treatment will not be tolerated and, as I have said, such allegations will be thoroughly investigated and, if they are substantiated, firm disciplinary action will be taken. Specific measures included 102 extra posts in the training organisation which have been re-established and filled to allow officers and NCOs more time for their supervisory roles. That relates to the paperwork point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe).
The enhanced role given to the Women's Royal Voluntary Service has been well received. An additional 92 posts are being established to improve welfare arrangements for single personnel and, so far, 24 of those posts have been filled in the United Kingdom. We intend to concentrate next on filling posts in Germany. Districts have implemented arrangements for providing additional training for civilian doctors engaged in recruiting to ensure that they are aware of the specific requirements of the army.
The full man-management training package for instructors is being developed and the content and scope of man-management training for junior officers and NCOs has also been reviewed and increased. The revised pamphlet with further guidance on the importance of out-of-hours supervision has been issued, and an instructive document on alcohol abuse has also been revised and issued.
Although it is early days to assess the success of these measures, we believe that substantiated allegations of bullying appear to be declining. I have figures to show this. I do not wish to be complacent, but I hope that they may place the matter in proper perspective. There were 15 substantiated cases in 1986, 31 cases in 1987, which naturally gave rise to concern, and only 12 cases last year. So far this year there have been six cases. To that extent, they are encouraging.
Having outlined the measures that we have taken and have yet to see come into effect, I shall address the issue of initiation ceremonies to which the hon. Member for Rhondda referred. The services have been concerned that so-called initiation ceremonies may have had a link with bullying. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering told the House that initiation ceremonies in the Army had been abolished. Similar action has been taken in the Royal Air Force, by standing orders prohibiting all such ceremonies. The Royal Navy, while by no means complacent, is not aware that initiation ceremonies play a significant part in Navy life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone was concerned about a case which involved a constituent. She was constrained in what she could say tonight because she believed that this was still a matter before courts martial. I shall not use the name of the constituent involved, but I will use the case as an illustration. It shows that we cannot be sure of the facts of the matter from evidence from one source. The purpose of the judicial process is to examine in a court all points of view and reach a reasonable man's conclusion based on them. The case demonstrates how seriously the Army takes all allegations of bullying.
All complaints, however minor, are thoroughly investigated by the special investigation branch. This alleged case of bullying involved three recruits and four non-commissioned officers, and was investigated. All the non-commissioned officers were court-martialled this month. To ensure fairness, four separate trials were held, each with a different court, but each, to ensure continuity, was legally advised by the same representative of the Lord Chancellor's Office.
After the cases against the accused had been heard, all were acquitted by their respective courts martial. Before any hon. Member rushes to conclusions, I add by way of background that a key witness failed to appear in court, so charges were dropped against two non-commissioned officers. In other cases, one witness has admitted to lying, and in general the witnesses were unconvincing. I should not want my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone to leave the House not knowing that these cases have been the subject of completed courts martial. One has to take time to consider all aspects of these matters, and to hope that the British system of justice, which is world renowned, is upheld in such courts as well as elsewhere—

Miss. Widdecombe: I am grateful for that detailed account. I should point out that we contacted my hon. Friend's office only today and were told that this was still


sub judice and that I should therefore be careful what I said about it. So I am surprised to learn that decisions have already been taken.
Will my hon. Friend confirm that this young soldier left the Army with an exemplary discharge and was offered the opportunity to re-enlist, which is not consistent with his having given any false evidence?

Mr. Neubert: I did not allege that he had given false evidence; I merely gave some details of the case. It is perhaps not appropriate for a matter of this complexity and seriousness to be discussed on the Floor of the House. I just wanted to counter one or two of the points that my hon. Friend made. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it would be better to discuss this further elsewhere. I shall be happy to hear all she has to say in writing or in person.
The subject of ethnic minorities in the services is also very serious. At the risk of being repetitive, I make it absolutely plain that the armed services are fully integrated, non-discriminatory organisations, in which no discrimination is tolerated. As we said in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates", the results of the first year's monitoring of applicants and recruits by ethnic origin revealed that the ethnic minorities were greatly under-represented among applicants for the armed forces, and that their success rate was lower than that of white applicants. Naturally, we cannot leave that unexamined. We have commissioned a study by outside consultants on what can be done to improve the situation. They are due to submit their report shortly, so at this stage I can say nothing more on this subject.

Mr. Rogers: Speaking from memory, I think that the success rate for applicants to the Air Force was about 85 per cent., which was 20 per cent. higher than in the Army. I suggested that the Minister should try to find the best practice in the services and then urge the other services to adopt a similar recruiting technique. Will he consider that?

Mr. Neubert: Yes, of course. That is still an open question. That is exactly the kind of consideration that we shall give following the submission and evaluation of the report.
On the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) about the formation of ethnic minority regiments, we believe that that would be divisive and contrary to the position of the armed forces which I described as a fully integrated, non-discriminatory organisation. We wish to encourage ethnic minority recruitment and we have commissioned a report to that end. I hope before much longer to have more to report to the House on that.
We seem to go from one serious issue to another. A point mentioned by more than one hon. Member, and particularly by the hon. Members for Rhondda and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was AIDS. The Ministry of Defence recognises the seriousness of AIDS. We have taken a full part in the education campaign. All new recruits and those in service are subject to lectures, briefings, videos and other instruction. Personnel deployed overseas are clearly and specifically briefed on the cause of the disease and the actions necessary to reduce the risk of infection. On returning from overseas, personnel are advised on the danger of passing on the infection. Those at risk are

encouraged to consult their medical officer confidentially, to undergo counselling and, if necessary, voluntary testing for HIV infections.
The services continue to employ HIV carriers and AIDS sufferers until their health deteriorates to a point where discharge on medical grounds becomes appropriate. They will be given medical advice and treatment. As regards numbers, it may be some reassurance to the House to hear that currently there are only three known HIV-positive individuals and two AIDS cases in the armed services. I was asked whether we are properly monitoring the position: yes, we are. Otherwise, our policy is the same as Government policy in general towards AIDS.
The hon. Member for Leyton asked about discharges. The services take a compassionate view of the AIDS sufferer. It is our policy to continue to employ sufferers in the armed forces for as long as possible. If a service man has to be discharged on medical grounds he will be treated humanely and allowed to leave with dignity, as would anyone leaving on any health ground.
The hon. Member for Rhondda picked up the point from last year about private contractors. The undertaking that my predecessor gave, which was to ensure that work not done adequately by private contractors would not be done by serving soldiers, still stands. Commands have been reminded not to assist private contractors or re-do their work. I hope that that point is accepted.
Several hon. Members spoke on housing. I tried hard, but I could not see the connection with discipline, unless occupation of our poorer quarters is regarded as a form of punishment. Housing is a matter of considerable concern. Not surprisingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury was here to make his point again. He suggested that the solution should not be two households.
I think that that is a little sweeping, because for some people it will be two households. There are many who have two households.
We are aware of the needs of those who do not have homes of their own. We are endeavouring to work a scheme which we hope will be brought in and which will meet the need. While this endeavour continues. we are discouraged if my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) should think that the Ministry of Defence has been laggard. He will acknowledge that in the debate in Committee on the Finance Bill the Treasury Minister said that contacts had been made with him by Ministers in the Ministry of Defence and that the door was still open for further discussion. That is where the matter stands. The judgment of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury was right.
We have very much in mind the need to recruit and retain service personnel. I hesitate to say how much work is going on in the Ministry of Defence, because it might alarm hon. Members to know how many are under way. We are acutely aware of the need not only to maintain recruitment but to retain those who are presently serving, who are valuable, highly skilled and dedicated personnel whom we do not wish to lose. We are constantly seeking ways to ensure that they are happy in their work and wish to continue.
Hon. Members have not paid sufficient attention to the success that the Government have had in providing employment. The 34th successive monthly fall in unemployment has just been announced. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear last Thursday, the Government have been outstandingly successful in


creating new jobs. This makes the employment scene highly competitive, and the services cannot escape that. However, we are by no means complacent, and have a whole range of matters under review. They include the points mentioned tonight.
We wish to see to a wider role for women. I remind the House that it was the Chief of the Air Staff who gave impetus to the campaign for the wider use of women in the Royal Air Force, by his interview in a magazine earlier in the year. We are also seeking ways to offer greater promotion possibilities to women.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) spoke about two matters that deserve the attention of the House. The first was drug abuse. I can assure him that, as I am sure he would expect, that is taken seriously, wherever and when ever it occurs. All ranks are made aware of the hazards of abuse through a comprehensive education package and, depending on the seriousness of the offence, may be discharged. This is the right way to proceed. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's request for leniency in such cases simply to solve our manning difficulties. That would be inimical to the image and prestige of our professional armed services.
As to the instance of drug abuse, although I am aware of the concern, I do not accept that it is a major problem. I hope that that will not make the hon. Gentleman think that we are complacent about it, but there has been a drop in the number of drug-related offences committed by

service men since 1984, when the figure was 370. By last year, that was down to 91. That is a testimony to the approach adopted by the services. They are aware of the need for constant vigilance. Moreover, steps have been taken to improve both the detection and prevention of drug abuse. I made a special visit to RAF Rudloe Manor to see the RAF police who are engaged in such work, among other things.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman for Stockton, North spoke about the need for debt and credit counselling, and anticipated my rather general reply. All three services are aware of the need to provide advice and information on personal and financial matters, including credit counselling. Advice is available to all service personnel within units, and they can be directed to outside financial advisers if necessary. Where cases occur, they are always followed up with further counselling and advice. The hon. Gentleman's point was that prevention was better than cure, and we take that to heart and will consider what he said about that.
I have endeavoured to cover the majority of the issues raised during the debate. I am grateful to the House for bearing with me as I did so. I am pleased with the general support that the House has given, which will be appreciated by the armed forces as well as by the Minister responsible.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Ordered,
That leave be given to the Select Committee on Members' Interests to visit Canada, in pursuance of its inquiry into parliamentary lobbying. [Mr. Alan Howarth.]

PETITIONS

Stranmillis College of Education

Rev. Martin Smyth: I have a petition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which has been signed by 164 students from the Stranmillis college of education. The college is in my constituency but the students come from throughout Northern Ireland. They oppose the proposed top-up loans system that is set out in the White Paper. I sympathise with them and support the petition and their prayer.
The petition reads:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will retain the present system of student grants. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
This morning I spoke to two senior academics and they said that they would be happy with loans because they would save them having to borrow for their children, but they felt that poorer families would be penalised.

To lie upon the Table.

Gipsy Sites (Leicester)

Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to present three petitions that have been signed by more than 1,450 of my constituents. All three petitions relate to the proposal by the environmental health department of Leicester city council to establish gipsy and traveller sites in densely populated areas of the eastern part of the city. The proposal affects directly the residents of Humberstone, West Humberstone and Rushey Mead. The residents are opposed to the proposals and call on the council to consult them first before any action is taken. They further call on the House to make it clear to the Secretary of State for the Environment that

should the matter come before him he must take appropriate action to prevent the sites being used for these purposes.
The first petition is presented on behalf of councillor Mike Preston, Mr. Keith Newcombe, Mr. Steve Marston, Mrs. Sue Chapman and 547 residents from Nether hall and Humberstone. The second petition is presented on behalf of Mrs. Margaret Ayers of 40 Lanesborough road. Rushey Mead, Leicester and 403 other residents of Rushey Mead. The third petition is presented on behalf of Mrs. Bird and 501 other residents of Old Humberstone.
The petitions state that the local residents oppose the proposals of the environmental health department of the city council for gipsy sites on the plots of land at Rushey Mead, Keyham lane and north of Keyham lane west respectively.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House encourage the Secretary of State for the Environment to take action to prevent the gipsy site from gaining permission.

To lie upon the Table.

West London (Road Building)

Mr. Matthew Carrington: I beg leave to present a petition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on behalf of my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). It is from the association of the residents of Sands End and West London RoadWatch. It is signed by 4,095 residents of the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, who express their justified concern about the proposed road called the western environmental improvement route and the view, which I strongly support, that the road will cause immense damage to their environment without solving west London's traffic problem.
The petition urges my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport
to take note of the environmental destruction, damage to the social fabric and deterioration in the quality of life which will result from his proposed road-building plans for London, and to abandon the Assessment Studies in their present form, delete major road-building options, particularly the 'Western Environmental Improvement Route' invest public money in public transport to serve the needs of all Londoners and preserve our environment.

To lie upon the Table.

EC Anti-dumping Duties

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I start by apologising to my hon. Friend the Minister for keeping him up so late. He is already familiar with the general drift of my arguments, but nevertheless I am glad that he will be replying to the debate, because no one else can defend the indefensible better than he can.
I have always found the concept of dumping rather strange. The idea that companies persistently and consistently sell products into export markets at an uneconomical price, perhaps subsidised by their Governments, in order to drive home industries out of business and subsequently to cream the market with high prices stretches one's credulity. Nevertheless, anti-dumping cases have become increasingly popular recently. That is partly because they make the initiators of such actions appear to be the friends of free trade, especially in an area in which direct and overt forms of protectionism such as quotas and tariff barriers are becoming increasingly popular.
I argue that regulations and laws against dumping are perfectly all right provided that they are fairly drafted. Unfortunately, the European Community's anti-dumping laws are patently unfair and unjust. Those laws as they stand allow the Commission to fine companies involved in so-called dumping even when that clearly has not occurred. The Community's regulations are complex and convoluted, but I shall touch on two of the ways in which they can make it appear that a company or industry has engaged in dumping when it has not.
The first is by so-called price construction. When the Commission investigates supposed cases of dumping, it does not compare the exporting company's domestic price with that charged in the export market. Instead, for a variety of reasons, the Commission constructs prices artificially, and not on a like-for-like basis. When the Commission considers the price charged domestically in Japan, for example, it includes all overheads and marketing costs—but virtualy excludes them in respect of the European market price. The result is that almost inevitably dumping appears to have occurred when it has not.
The second way in which the Commission makes it appear that dumping has occurred is by including in the regulations a provision that a start-up industry that is selling its products at a loss—perhaps because its plant has not yet reached economical capacity—can be found guilty of dumping and have duties imposed upon it even though its export prices may be well above those prevailing on its home market. That is a major disincentive for start-up factories abroad attempting to sell into the European market. Such injustices explain why companies in the colony of Hong Kong, for example, can be said to be guilty of dumping.
It may be thought strange that Hong Kong companies can be accused of dumping. After all, its economy is one of the most open, free and liberated in the world. It is subject to no Government policy, there is little intervention in industry, and virtually no subsidies. The question may be asked as to how small and medium-sized Hong Kong companies can afford persistently to dump

their goods on to the European market. I do not think that they can, yet in recent years the Commission found Hong Kong manufacturers of video tapes, for example, guilty of supposed dumping. It now proposes to investigate imports of denim cloth from Hong Kong, even though they are already heavily protected by the multi-fibre arrangement and Community quotas.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will adduce in his defence of the Commission and its anti-dumping regulations the information that the European Court of Justice has ruled in the Commission's favour. Let me point out that all the European Court of Justice has done is say that the Commission has imposed those regulations to the letter. It has not judged the matter on the basis of the justice or otherwise of the regulations.
I suspect that my hon. Friend will also adduce in the Commission's defence the fact that the GATT code supposedly endorses the European anti-dumping regulations. The GATT code is a very vague and broadly drafted document: in many ways it is the lowest common denominator of agreement between GATT members. The fact that it seems to enshrine the concept of the EC regulations in no way makes those regulations just.
Some people would say, "After all, the Japanese have traded unfairly against us in the past; why should we mind if we are putting up a few barriers against them now?". I do not want to dwell on the subject of supposed Japanese protectionism, except to say that in my experience it has often been heavily exaggerated in the west, especially by industrialists and business men, who have not made proper efforts to sell into the Japanese market and who often have not been selling goods of sufficient quality to succeed.
It is also worth reminding ourselves that we in the west are ourselves guilty of large-scale protectionism, not just in Europe but in the United States, which often tries to present itself as the great land of free trade. We have a range of voluntary restraint agreements, export restraint agreements, quotas, tariff barriers and a variety of other mechanisms which, over the years, have spun an entangling web that to a large extent prevents the free movement of goods into our market and the American market.
Those barriers cover goods ranging from textiles—which, of course, are bought by almost everyone in the EEC and America—to high-tech goods such as microchips, computers and cars. Moreover, we in Europe and America have intervened in our own industries, and have subsidised the shipbuilding and car industries particularly heavily. We should remember that when we consider imposing slightly unfair regulations on the Japanese.
The range of protectionist instruments currently in the EEC armoury do not even help our home industries. By protecting industry, we not only reduce competition on our home market—which makes our own companies concentrate on that market to the expense of export markets—but compound the inefficiencies of our industries, and make it far less likely that they will be able to compete on equal terms with Japan and other East Asian countries on the world markets. Such protectionism is a recipe for slow decline.
Anti-dumping duties, in imposing heavy price rises, are effectively a tax on European consumers to the benefit of the industrial lobbies and special interests that are unable to keep up with overseas competition. That, of course,


adds considerably to European prices. I cannot say to what extent anti-dumping duties have added to the price of articles such as photocopiers or electronic typewriters, because the EEC Commissioners are unfortunately less than forthcoming. In fact, they have consistently refused to give any details of the amount of duties that they have raised, notwithstanding the fact that the entire amount goes into the Commission's pocket. I feel that the House has a right to expect the Commission to reveal that information. Its stonewalling attitude makes British Government Departments look profligate with the truth.
The EEC is very much in the news just now. It is being used as a stick by some new converts to the EEC with which to beat our Prime Minister. Some of us who have for long been supporters of the concept of the European Community find that odd. We also dread to think what would happen if the EEC ever got control of many of our national areas of government, such as social policy. If it did, and if it introduced legislation as patently unjust—and released as little information about it—as it does about anti-dumping duties, that would make a complete farce of government, and people would rapidly lose confidence in the EEC.
It is also ironic that many people in Europe are accusing Britain of being anti-European and uncommunautaire. After all, Britain is the most liberal of the EEC trading partners, notwithstanding some remaining trade barriers. Indeed, some Europeans have a bit of a cheek lecturing us on being un-European, when they maintain a whole range of non-tariff barriers against British products such as telecommunications equipment. They should look to liberalising their own markets and creating genuinely internal European markets. If they had made the progress that we have made in the last few years in liberalising our market, they would be on stronger ground when criticising us for being non-European.
I wish to inject some optimism into the debate. There is good news in that the new Commission includes some liberal-minded politicians, particularly Mr. Bangemann, Sir Leon Brittan and Mr. Andriessen, who seems to be standing out against the creation of a fortress Europe—or, rather, a ghetto Europe, as it would become. I understand that they are currently fighting a battle against European industrial interests such as Fiat to try to ensure that there is no EEC-wide car quota after 1992, and I wish them well in their efforts.
Her Majesty's Government have been at the forefront in trying to liberalise trade and reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers and all types of trade barriers. I hope that the Minister will not think me remiss when I say that perhaps we could do a little more to try to push the Commission away from imposing what are patently anti-dumping duties on a whole range of products which do not give any protection or benefit to our industry in the long term and which only impose large price rises on EEC consumers.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) on the force and clarity with which he put forward his views. He did so in a manner which we have come to expect from him, being among my hon. Friends the most articulate of the exponents of free trade in its purest form. He pursued his arguments in tonight's debate, as he did in the debate in October of last year, and he loses

no opportunity to draw attention to the strength of his case each month when my Department is scheduled to answer at Question Time.
I welcome the opportunity to clarify the position both regarding the Community's policy in this sphere and the views of Her Majesty's Government. My hon. Friend will agree that an Adjournment debate is not the place or time at which to embark on a detailed critique of anti-dumping policy, but I am ready to do my best to respond to some of the points my hon. Friend made.
As for the Community's legislation, it is appropriate for me to put on record the basis for the Community's present approach, which is regulation 2423/88, which consolidated the earlier legislation. This reflects the principle of GATT article VI and incorporates the interpretive and other requirements of the code.
In a number of respects the regulation is more liberal than GATT requires. Particular examples are the way in which a limit is fixed on the duration of duties and the requirement that they should be set at less than full dumping margin where the injury margin is lower. This is in contrast to United States practice, but of course I am not responsible for American policy and I would not be expected to defend it here. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the increasing signs of protectionism in a number of sectors. The United States is edging away from the principle of free trade and moving towards a quite naked and flagrant protectionism in some sectors
Perhaps the most significant departure of Community legislation from the GATT code is the introduction of the concept of the Community interest which certainly, in our view, allows the likely impact on consumers and industrial users, as well as wider economic aspects, to be taken into account before any duty or other remedy is decided upon.
The regulation is a detailed document which lays down the internal Community procedures to be followed. It prescribes at some length the way in which a dumping margin is to be calculated and the factors which are to be taken into account in determining injury. Competence in this field is reserved to the Community under the treaty of Rome. Thus the main responsibility for carrying out the main procedures, including investigations and the determination of dumping and injury margins, is placed upon the Commission. It can also decide on its own authority to impose provisional duties, which are not, however, collected until a definitive duty has been fixed. But at the end of the process it is for the Council of Ministers, on the basis of qualified majority voting, to take the decision whether remedial duties should be applied.
My hon. Friend made a number of general points about anti-dumping cases where the justification is unreal and he implied that some aspects of the evidence are rigged. I use that word in a non-pejorative sense. He made no specific allegations. He referred to examples of goods originating in Hong Kong, but his case would have been stronger had he been able to cite particular examples and to subject the figures to more detailed scrutiny. He has referred to examples that are causing him disquiet. They are being considered by the Community. I hope that he will refer them to my Department where we shall look into them closely.
Over the years the Commission has investigated a steady stream of anti-dumping cases, the majority of which have involved basic or intermediate industrial goods. A significant proportion has concerned imports from state trading countries. My hon. Friend concentrated on


imports from the far east, but the state trading countries are the principal culprits. Price and market disciplines do not operate there, as they do in the liberal Western economies. There has been no major increase in the number of investigations, although that is sometimes alleged. I have a detailed table of figures with which I shall not weary the House, but I shall forward it to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Oppenheim: I did not go into great detail about facts and figures, because this is only a short debate. However, I point my hon. Friend in the direction of the photocopier case, the electronic typewriter case and the computer printer case where there are problems with constructive pricing and with the asymmetry of price determination in the exporting and the importing market. Those are three specific cases where regulations have been imposed unjustly.
It is certainly true that there has been no overall increase in the number of cases, but there has been a substantial increase since the mid-1980s in the number of cases against east Asian countries that do not have state trading organisations. Nevertheless, I accept that there has been a reduction in the number of cases against state trading types of organisations and centrally controlled economies.

Mr. Clark: That reminds me of a point that is not covered in the text of my reply. My hon. Friend showed a little naivety in his argument. He could not comprehend how an exporter could deliberately target a market, sell under the going rate to achieve market share and ultimately eliminate competition, get a free rate and then adjust prices upwards. That is an accepted commercial strategy. The most notable example was the destruction of the motor cycle industry in parts of the Community, notably the United Kingdom, which was followed by considerable increases in the prices of the predator exporter. However, I do not want to get involved in detailed arguments at this stage. I accept what my hon. Friend says about office equipment. I shall send him more detailed figures and look forward to his further comments.
Anti-dumping is a legal and technical instrument and not a discretionary measure which can be used at will to achieve wider policy aims in the Community context, although some countries, notably the United States, tend to use it in a discretionary way to achieve wider trade policy or protectionist objectives.
The Government's approach has been to subject the Commission's findings to careful examination and, where necessary, to raise questions about the degree of dumping and injury established. We have given particular attention to the remedies proposed and their impact on consumers. We follow the principle, which no doubt my hon. Friend would approve, that GATT provides an instrument for use in defined circumstances: it does not require that action should be taken unless on economic grounds it is justified. Where we disagree with the Commission's proposals, we are fully prepared to say so and, if necessary, to register our vote against them in the Council, as we have done on a number of occasions in the past year.
Whatever may be said about the present GATT framework and the Community's policy, there will continue to be a need for an effective internationally agreed instrument to deal with unfair trading practicies. It will not be sufficient to rely solely on national competition laws. The majority of OECD countries do not, at this time, appear to see the need for any radical change in the present anti-dumping instrument or in its application. We believe that useful work can be done in the OECD in examining the concept of unfair trading and the relevance of present trade policy instruments, but that will take time to bring to completion.
In the meantime, the Uruguay round will, as I have said, provide an opportunity for addressing some of the criticisms and the proposals made by Japan, Korea and certain other newly industrialised economies which feel that the present system needs to be subjected to tighter rules and disciplines. It is unlikely that the Community will wish to amend its legislation until those negotiations in GATT have been concluded.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Twelve o'clock.